Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Foot and Mouth

Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to foot and mouth disease in Wales. [155491]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On Sunday, I visited Anglesey, Snowdonia and Welshpool with the First Minister and the Welsh Minister responsible for agriculture. Yesterday, I accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to the operations centre in Cardiff, and to Monmouthshire, where he met representatives of the farming and tourism industries.

Miss McIntosh: I welcome that answer. The Secretary of State will be aware of the devastating effect that the outbreak is having in Wales on the farming community and on tourism. Is he aware of the concern that infected animals are being disposed of in areas that are not presently infected? Has he had discussions with the Welsh Minister responsible for agriculture to see what precautions can be taken?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, I have. This morning, I spoke with the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, Carwyn Jones, who is doing a first-class job. He is conscious, as we all are, of the problems of disposing of sheep and pig carcases in landfill sites. It is important for us to continue to seek solutions to these problems. We believe that we can overcome them by ensuring that the time from reporting a case to slaughter is no more than 24 hours. That is how we can control and eradicate the disease, and dependent on that is the disposal of carcases.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposed large-scale dumping of carcases in a landfill site at Trecatti Dowlals in my constituency? Is he further aware of the long-standing environmental health concerns about that site? Will he confirm that a notice rust be served by the Assembly Secretary before any such dumping can take

place, and that no such notice has yet been served? In the light of the serious health and environmental concerns that are felt locally, will he convey to the Assembly Secretary the strength of feeling that he should not serve such a notice?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. His point follows on from the previous question and the significance of the disposal issues. This morning I talked with Carwyn Jones about Trecatti, and he tells me that there are no plans in the Assembly to use that tip for disposal. He agrees that it is for the Assembly to bring forward such an order. I shall certainly put to him the points that my hon. Friend has made, including the proposal of a meeting with the Assembly Minister.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State in future ensure that MPs, National Assembly Members and county council members are informed when a decision is taken at a high level on the location of a disposal site? I refer in particular to the Eppynt site in my constituency. On Friday night, I spent eight hours negotiating with the Agriculture Minister of the National Assembly to meet representatives on that site. The lack of communication with democratically elected people is lamentable. We knew nothing about the decision. That is a disgrace. Will he ensure that, in future, people are properly informed when something of this nature occurs, and that we are not left to pick up the pieces? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Does he agree with me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the message.

Mr. Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I have.
Of course it is important to ensure that democratically elected representatives of the people are informed of these matters, but the priority must be the eradication of the disease and the disposal of carcases after animals have been slaughtered. I understand the difficulties regarding that site, but it is important that we identify and use sites. It is enormously important to ensure that demonstrations are held peacefully. We cannot but abhor the violence that was used at that site over the weekend. People must understand the significance of identifying such sites if we are to stop this terrible disease.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to my constituency yesterday with the First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The farming representatives who attended that meeting were impressed with the Prime Minister's command and concern. However, he heard from some of the farmers that there has been an unreasonable delay in the slaughter of animals on farms that are contiguous with farms where there has been an outbreak. There is particular concern about the Graig farm in Grosmont, where there has been a nine-day delay. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and give me an assurance that everyone will be able to work together to get a solution to this problem as soon as possible?

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the meeting that was held in Usk yesterday. It was highly successful, and the Prime Minister was there for an


hour and a half to two hours talking to representatives from the farming community and the tourism industry, especially from Monmouthshire. I accept the point that my hon. Friend made about contiguous farms. We are aiming for cases to be dealt with on such farms within 48 hours. Clearly, it is more important to ensure that the 24-hour cull is done first, and then the cull on contiguous farms.
As for my hon. Friend's constituency and local authority area, I am given to understand that an office is to be opened in the next day or two somewhere in the middle of Monmouthshire, to ensure that the co-ordination to which he referred takes place.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Following his welcome visit to Anglesey on Sunday, the Secretary of State will be aware of the enormous concern felt by the tourism industry, whose takings are down by between 80 and 90 per cent. in Anglesey and Snowdonia.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the latest assessment by North Wales Tourism, which estimates that by the end of June the north Wales tourism industry will have lost £100 million? I am aware of the measures that have already been taken, but will the right hon. Gentleman, along with the First Minister, now seriously consider a loan scheme to help tourism operators through their cashflow crisis? If necessary, will he secure funds from the Treasury?

Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the impact of the disease on rural Wales. It behoves us all to carry on saying that Wales is open for business; but there are particular problems in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's in Anglesey and, indeed, Snowdonia, which I visited not long after my visit to Anglesey.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned small-business loans yesterday, in the Welsh Assembly. I shall give him the same answer as the First Minister's: such a scheme is under consideration, and we appreciate the points that he has made.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism is especially important as we approach Easter, and that we should do all that we can to promote it? My family and I will be seeing the unsurpassed beauty of west Wales at Easter. May I encourage others to visit the Welsh countryside, much of which is unaffected? We need to talk up the countryside, rather than constantly talking it down.

Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree. I would advise anyone to go to west Wales and see the great delights of that part of the country.
I remind the House that the public in Wales have been issued guidance on where they can go. They can visit towns, villages, seaside resorts, pubs, restaurants, cafés, shops, markets, churches, museums, art galleries and so on. There are plenty of places to visit in Wales, and we must encourage not just those from England and Scotland but those from other countries to visit them.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State is absolutely right. We must all do what we can to eradicate foot and mouth, which is having appalling consequences for agriculture and tourism in Wales.
What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with local farmers and representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales, who are concerned about the site at Eppynt? There has been little consultation about the site, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is just a mile away from the Carmarthenshire border. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire are clean areas with no foot and mouth, and people there are very concerned about the possible effect on their farming areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that proper consultation takes place, and that those concerns can be dealt with?

Mr. Murphy: Of course we must have proper consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that representatives of the Sennybridge community were able to discuss their concerns with both the Prime Minister and the First Minister, but I am sure that he shares my belief that we must eradicate the disease as quickly as possible. That requires proper disposal sites, one of which is at Eppynt.

Mr. Evans: Tourism has been badly affected by foot and mouth. When will the Government produce an aid package—not a recovery package, but a survival package—for many of the small businesses throughout Wales that have suffered as a result of the crisis?
Today I spoke to Ashley Price, the owner of Dan-yr-Ogof caves, which have been open since 1912. They are the Welsh tourist board's visitor attraction of the year, and are among the world's best-known show caves. Visitor numbers have collapsed, and layoffs have already occurred. Ashley Price tells me that if no help comes within the next 10 weeks, the ventilators and pumps will be switched off and one of Wales's premier tourist attractions, which is of great historic interest and has survived two world wars, will be lost for ever. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a survival package for the tourism industry will be announced as soon as possible?

Mr. Murphy: Mr. Price was present at yesterday's meeting in Usk and made those points to the Prime Minister and to the rest of us. We understand that his case is not untypical; there are such cases throughout Wales. In the past couple of days, I have been to Anglesey, Welshpool and Monmouthshire, where people from the tourism industry were making precisely the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He is aware that the National Assembly has announced a substantial package by way of rate relief and other help for rural areas. We are working on other matters, so that we can see how best to help those devastated rural communities.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Given the effect that the foot and mouth crisis is having on Welsh tourism, can my right hon. Friend say what steps the Wales Office is taking to facilitate the reopening of footpaths?

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend will know that, yesterday, the Prime Minister met leaders of local authorities in Wales. He made the point to those leaders, who were of all parties, that it is important that, where it is safe to do so—that is the caveat—footpaths should be reopened. In large parts of Wales, it is safe for footpaths to be reopened. My office and the Assembly will work closely with local authorities to ensure that that is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on manufacturing competitiveness in Wales. [155492]

Ms Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about plans to help manufacturing industry in Wales. [155498]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Government are committed to improving manufacturing competitiveness throughout the United Kingdom by helping established industries to modernise and to compete in new global markets, by encouraging enterprise and by creating a stable economic climate.

Mr. Brady: The Engineering Employers Federation has warned that 150,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next year. Is it not utterly irresponsible for the Government to pile yet more costs on to manufacturing businesses in Wales through the climate change levy?

Mr. Murphy: Manufacturing productivity, output and exports are all up. The record of the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office contrasts badly with that. On the climate change levy, I have no doubt that it is the right thing to do, ensuring that we balance the way in which we deal with the climate and the environment in general, and the way in which businesses can play a responsible part in that.

Ms Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem for manufacturing industry in Wales is the threat from low-wage economies, such as those of Hungary and Poland, where wages are at least a sixth of ours? Does he agree that the way ahead for Welsh manufacturing industry is to work closely with universities and institutions to develop cutting-edge technology? Federal Mogul on the Llanishen trading estates in my constituency has done that very thing.

Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is aware that it is the Government's job to try to manage any change in the economy, and that many high-tech, knowledge-based companies are moving to Wales, bringing many jobs. That is how we must manage the economy in Wales—ensuring that, when jobs go, we replace them with other jobs.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: That may be what the Secretary of State says now, but does he realise that 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since Labour took office? Referring to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, Welsh manufacturing is now so bad that it is at the bottom of the competitiveness league. It is on a par with that of Hungary, so what is the right hon. Gentleman doing? What representations is he making in Cabinet to stem the flow of jobs?

Mr. Murphy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 17,000 more jobs in Wales since this Government came to office? Hon. Members must understand that that figure is a real one. I represent a manufacturing constituency and I know that, when it loses jobs—for

example, Corns may decide to shut down part of Llanwern—those jobs are being replaced very quickly by other jobs. On Friday this week, I am opening a factory in my constituency, where a total of 264 new high-tech jobs are being created for my constituents. That has been replicated time and again throughout Wales.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that the reasons given by Corns for closures and redundancies are financial. Will he comment, then, on its decision in the past few days to hand out 1.6 million share options worth £900,000 to four directors, and on the fact that the two former chief executives who were sacked, seemingly for incompetence, have been awarded redundancy payments in excess of £2 million? Can he imagine the anger felt in my community that the people who destroyed the industry are getting big handouts while those who built the industry and made it the most efficient in the world are getting the dole queue?

Mr. Murphy: I can imagine the feelings of the people in Blaenau Gwent, and Ebbw Vale in particular. I do not want to comment on the individuals, because that is a matter for the company, but it is also a matter for the company that if it goes ahead with its original plans, it will bring all the uncertainties and problems of redundancy to people in areas such as my hon. Friend's, who cannot overcome those problems unless they have alternative employment. It is still the Government's belief that Corus should take a long-term view of the steel industry, ensuring that jobs are kept and the industry continues to flourish.

Mr. Robert Walter: For some time, Conservative Members have been highlighting the damage being done to the competitiveness of the Welsh economy by the high value of the pound against the euro, by over-regulation, by stealth taxes and by the climate change levy.
If the thousands of job losses at Corns were not enough, month by month there is a stream of other job losses: 65 to go at Chubb Fire in the Rhondda; 61 at Honeywell in Treforest; 79 at Arkana in Caerphilly; 88 at General Electric in Nantgarw; and the complete closure of Takiron in Bedwas. Mr. John Spencer of Chubb Fire summed it up when he said:
In light of increasing globalisation and overseas competition, the company has undertaken an in-depth study of its cost base.
Farming is in crisis in Wales; tourism is in crisis; and manufacturing is disappearing before our eyes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No one should be shouting at the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walter: Are the Government doing anything about this, or are they abdicating responsibility to the National Assembly and the Liberal Democrat leader in Cardiff?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman gave us a list of companies that, unfortunately, have had problems surviving over the past few months. Let me give him a couple of alternatives: Ford in Bridgend, 640 jobs; Conduit in Cardiff, 500 jobs; small businesses in


Denbighshire, 490 new jobs; Halifax Card Services in Cardiff, 400 new jobs; Toyota in Deeside, 310 new jobs; and so on, and so on, and so on.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy (Deeside)

Mr. Ben Chapman: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the economy in Deeside. [155493]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Donohoe, you shout so much it gives me a sore head.

Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues, including a variety of economic issues affecting Wales.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the economic prospects for the people of Deeside—on both our sides of the river—are better than they have been for many years, not least because of low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment, but also because of major investment coming on stream at, for example, BAE Systems in Broughton and at Toyota? Does he also agree that that would all be put at risk if we were to return to the days of paranoia about Europe; public spending cuts; tax promises made only to be broken; and boom and bust? Those are the policies that characterised the Conservative party's time in government.

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes some valid points. He will be aware that Toyota at Deeside has invested £100 million and created nearly 500 new jobs, and that BAE Systems at Deeside has created hundreds of new jobs—wings are made in Wales and other aircraft parts are made in Europe. That would certainly be affected by Conservative European policies. On both sides of the Dee, unemployment is down, and in my hon. Friend's constituency it has fallen by more than 700 since the general election. The Labour Government are working for Deeside on both sides of the river, and I support his efforts.

Mr. Simon Thomas: What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on Deeside's economy of the unilateral decision by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to plant GM crops in Flintshire, which is one of three sites in Wales being used for that purpose? What impact will that decision have on Deeside's agriculture and economy? As the local Member and as a Minister, was he informed of the decision? If so, what was his response? What did he tell Assembly Members about the decision? Did he inform hon. Members of the decision?

Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the sites were chosen on the basis of scientific advice from the scientific committee, SCIMAC—supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops. There have been continuing discussions on those matters with the National

Assembly and with Government colleagues. For the hon. Gentleman's information, Sealand is not in my constituency.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on Deeside, we need a very substantial steel spine to our manufacturing capability? With the loss of 319 steel jobs, what can the Wales Office do to ensure that redundant steel workers are given jobs at the nearby Airbus factory, where 1,700 new jobs are available? Does he think that the trainers are up to the job of training redundant steel workers to work in aerospace?

Mr. Hanson: In my right hon. Friend's 31 years in the House, he has been a strong supporter and has battled hard for steel and for aerospace. He will know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has indicated his willingness to approach the European Commission for help and support to re-train steel workers who may face redundancy. He will also know that, following the Labour Government's investment of more than £530 million, there are great and advancing job opportunities in British Aerospace, which I hope many of the steel workers facing potential redundancy will be able to take up in the near future. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I call the House to come to order.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Minimum Wage

Mr. Chris Ruane: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact of the national minimum wage on income levels in Wales. [155495]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have regular discussions with a range of ministerial colleagues on various issues. The national minimum wage has contributed to a reduction in the pay gap between different parts of the United Kingdom. Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, between April 1999 and April 2000, due to the minimum wage, average earnings in Wales increased by 4 per cent., compared with a national average of 2.3 per cent.

Mr. Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I inform him that my constituents remember the bad old days under the Tories, when my constituents worked for as little as a pound an hour and all the chips they could eat? What measures have been taken to monitor the introduction of the minimum wage in Wales?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend will be aware that 80,000 people in Wales have benefited from the minimum wage, which, as he knows, will increase to £4.10 from October 2001. Measures are in place to ensure that there is enforcement and that workers receive the minimum wage when companies renege on their responsibilities. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the 80,000 people in Wales who are benefiting from the minimum wage would


not be doing so had Conservative Members been in office. Neither Conservative Members, the nationalists nor Liberal Democrat Members voted for the minimum wage.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware that there is no minimum wage for farmers and many others who are affected by the foot and mouth crisis? I am sorry to say that that fact, coupled with general stress, may have caused a number of suicides in Wales. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be some type of minimum wage for those who are affected by the foot and mouth crisis? Will he also assure us that he is seriously considering possible support for the emotional well-being and mental health of those affected by the crisis?

Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we very much sympathise with those people and are concerned about the level of farm incomes, particularly now. He will also know that the Government have invested heavily in support for a farmers helpline. However, it is a bit rich for Liberal Democrat Members to talk about a minimum wage. As I said, neither they, Conservative Members nor the nationalists voted for it in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions — Foot and Mouth

Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding support for the non-livestock sectors of commerce and industry affected by the foot and mouth outbreak in the Conwy constituency. [155496]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the First Minister. In the light of the current position on foot and mouth disease, support for the non-livestock sectors of commerce and industry have of course figured prominently in those discussions. As my hon. Friend knows, on Sunday I visited north Wales with the First Minister, where we met representatives of the tourism industry.

Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is continuing concern about the limited access to the countryside and crags of north Wales? May I draw his attention to the circumstances of my constituent, Ric Potter? Like many others, he has had to travel to Scotland, where there is greater access. Will my right hon. Friend help us to enable people such as Ric Potter to find work in outdoor pursuits?

Mr. Murphy: As I told the House about 15 minutes ago, it is important that people understand that Wales is still open for business and that the Welsh countryside is not closed down. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met local authority leaders in Wales yesterday, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do the same. I shall also meet the First Minister to ensure that the point that she has raised is addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Sir Archie Hamilton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Archie Hamilton: As it is apparent that the epidemic of foot and mouth has been caused by the import of meat from abroad, why has no ban been placed on all meat from countries with foot and mouth? Why has the Prime Minister not more seriously restricted the illegal import of meat into this country?

The Prime Minister: There are strict rules that govern the import of meat. They are set by the European Union, and we abide by them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] They are exactly the same rules that applied when the Conservative party was in power. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that we will consider ensuring that those rules are tightly applied, and more strictly than at present. In addition, the whole issue of ensuring that the meat that comes into this country is disease free will be looked at. However, there are strict rules by which we must abide when changing any of the laws in this area because, of course, we trade with a lot of countries, too.

Mr. Neil Turner: My constituency is looking forward to being one of the first to have a primary care trust, and £25 million has been invested in a state of the art walk-in facility in Wigan town centre. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the Government are prepared to invest in the NHS, with new matrons, and does not that contrast with 18 years of waffle, cuts and privatisation under the previous Government?

The Prime Minister: Some 2,000 matrons will be introduced as a result of the proposals made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. That is in addition to the 17,000 extra nurses who have entered the national health service as a result of the investment that this Government have put in. The most important thing is to recognise that there is still a lot more to do in the national health service. That is why the record investment that we have put in place for the next few years has to be maintained, to ensure that we do not return to the policy of cuts and privatisation of the Conservative party.

Mr. William Hague: A huge effort is being made by people on the ground to overcome the foot and mouth crisis. We all hope that the disease—there are more than 1,000 reported cases as we speak—will soon be brought under control. The Prime Minister will know that the latest Government figures show that the


backlog of infected animals awaiting slaughter has reached 379,000. How many of those animals have been awaiting slaughter for more than a week?

The Prime Minister: Those figures include the animals awaiting slaughter, and animals that have been slaughtered but which have not yet been reported as having been slaughtered. Therefore, when both the slaughter and disposal figures come in, one has to recognise that they will be changed in the days ahead.
Perhaps it would help if I gave the House the very latest figure for the average daily rate of slaughtering. As I say, because the figures are being reported from different parts of the country by vets, soldiers and others, it takes some time to make sure that they are fully up to date. The latest figures show that, for the weekend of 25 March, on average 48,000 animals were slaughtered per day; for the weekend of 18 March the figure was 39,000, and for the weekend of 11 March it was 21,000. The rate is therefore increasing the whole time. The disposal figures will also be changed substantially, because they include animals that have been slaughtered but not yet disposed of.

Mr. Hague: We understand the difficulties about the figures, but the Government's figures showed that a week ago 280,000 animals were awaiting slaughter. We know that about 150,000 have been slaughtered since Monday night—there may have been additional numbers, as the right hon. Gentleman says—but it seems that tens of thousands of animals designated for slaughter a week ago still have not been slaughtered. Individual cases around the country also suggest that that is so. Is it not the case that until we further speed up the slaughter programme, we will not be able to stop the disease spreading, as it still is, to previously uninfected farms?

The Prime Minister: We have speeded up the slaughter programme enormously. In the two weeks between 11 March and 25 March, the rate more than doubled.
Let me give the disposal figures. For the weekend of 11 March, the average daily rate of disposal was 15,000. For the weekend of 18 March, the figure was 26,000, and for the weekend of 25 March, it was 40,000. The rate is increasing the entire time. As an example of how the figures change as fresh information comes in, on 28 March we gave the figure for animals awaiting slaughter as 215,000. The latest figures for that day suggest that the actual number was 167,000. It has been revised downwards substantially as a result of the fresh information that was received. That is the difficulty with citing daily figures. However, the figures for which precise information is available show that the rate of slaughter and disposal has dramatically increased in the past two weeks.

Mr. Hague: Nevertheless, individual cases remain, and I will write to the Prime Minister about many of them.
There is, of course, a deep crisis not only in farming but in tourism and rural business, whatever efforts we make—[Interruption.] Labour Members should reflect on the fact that nearly everything that we have proposed so far has had to be done, so it would be advisable for them to listen now. Many rural businesses are having problems, despite our efforts to tell people that there are many places in the

countryside that they can visit responsibly. Two weeks ago, I proposed introducing an emergency loan scheme to provide urgent help to thousands of rural hotels, shops, tourist attractions, and so on. The Prime Minister said that he would consider that proposal carefully. Two weeks is quite a long time for people laid off from their job or business, with no income. Will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to introduce that scheme, or something like it, before Easter is upon us?

The Prime Minister: Yes. In fact, I said that it was better to build on the existing small loans guarantee scheme rather than have an entirely new one. In the next couple of days my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will announce details of how that scheme can be expanded and enhanced. That is in addition to the extra help that we are giving on rate relief and the holidays on tax and VAT where discretion can be exercised. However, the most important thing—I have discussed this in detail with representatives of the tourism industry right around the country—is to get business and tourists back into the countryside. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging county councils and local authorities that could reopen a substantial number of attractions and footpaths that do not go anywhere near farmland to do so. Opening up the countryside again and making people understand that that is happening is the best way in which to get tourists' business back into the countryside.

Mr. Hague: I certainly agree that there are many places in the countryside that people can visit responsibly, although the priority must be to prevent the spread of the disease and eradicate it.
I accept that the Government have agreed to rate relief in rural areas. However, is the Prime Minister aware that many hard-hit rural businesses in areas such as Staffordshire, which has a large number of foot and mouth cases, do not qualify for that relief because they are in the rural part of what has been designated an urban area? Will he look again at those cases? Should we not be doing other things to help businesses with their cash flow, such as allowing an earlier than usual reassessment of their tax payments and advancing refunds of VAT which would eventually be due to them anyway?

The Prime Minister: We are already considering that point. Again, let me give the House some facts. The survey by the British Tourist Authority of the United Kingdom's top 15,000 attractions and events shows that 80 per cent. of attractions are open and 91 per cent. of events are going ahead. Very large parts of the countryside in various parts of the country are reopening in the next few days in the run-up to Easter. It is tremendously important, therefore, to send out a clear message that the vast majority of things that people want to do in the countryside can be done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the local authorities—Labour and Conservative—which have the authority to do so to reopen footpaths that do not go through farmland. That is important.
As for the rest of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in respect of the tourism industry, of course it is important that we do everything that we can


to help the industry, but the single most important thing that we can do is to encourage business back to the countryside.

Mr. Hague: Finally on foot and mouth, we agree with the Minister for the Environment that when this whole crisis is finally over, we will unquestionably need a full public inquiry. The inquiry into the 1967 outbreak concluded, among other things, that future Governments should respond immediately to any foot and mouth incident with slaughter on suspicion and on-farm burial within 24 hours rather than burning. Should not the first recommendation of the future inquiry be that Ministers of any party should read the recommendations of the last one?

The Prime Minister: As for the 1967 outbreak, it may just be worth giving the House the facts again. On average, there were something like 13,000 slaughterings a week during that outbreak. The average now is well over 100,000. So the idea that somehow we have not taken the action necessary is simply wrong. Of course the lessons of that outbreak have been learned, but this is an entirely different type of outbreak, for the reasons that I have given. There was a multiplicity of movements of sheep for two to three weeks before the disease was ever detected and reported. That has inevitably made it harder to deal with. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the work not just of the Army, which has been superb, but of local officials, civil servants, vets and others, who have done a fantastic job in difficult circumstances in defeating the disease.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When drawing up the next manifesto, will the Prime Minister look at the possibility of ensuring that workers in this country are not sacked more easily than those on the continent and elsewhere? Now that Railtrack shares are at an all-time low, we could get it back for a song. When we have had our glorious victory, will my right hon. Friend ask the Army to take overall control of the Tory party and run its leadership cull?

The Prime Minister: I am tempted just to say yes.
In respect of information and consultation, of course it is important that our work force have the rights that they deserve. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the fairness at work proposals and, for the first time, the right to trade union representation.
In respect of Railtrack, I believe that the programme outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is the right way forward. In respect of the Army, I yield to no one in my admiration for it, but some logistical tasks, I fear, are beyond it.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have to say that I agree with that thought. May I bring the Prime Minister's attention back to the difficulties of agriculture and the related industries? Council chiefs in Cumbria have been saying on the airwaves at lunchtime today that, in many cases, the bureaucracy and length of time involved in processing the applications for reimbursement, support, consequential loss and so on are such that it might be up to six months before they can see cases through. Too many jobs and

businesses in tourism and related activities will have been lost by then. Is there anything that the Prime Minister can do to speed the process up?

The Prime Minister: In respect of compensation for farmers, there are two different issues. There is the compensation for the animals that are actually slaughtered; we are trying to ensure that the payments get through as quickly as possible—hopefully within days, if not weeks. Secondly, in respect of the Intervention Board and animal welfare, there has been a programme vastly bigger than anything previously anticipated. We are looking—now—at how we can speed up applications and get that done quickly.
In respect of tourism, of course, some of our proposals are in the hands of local authorities themselves—especially in relation to rate relief and so on. I held a meeting with local authorities yesterday. We are happy to look at any proposals they make to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from that system. However, I repeat—as I said to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) a short time ago—that I also hope that local authorities help us in making sure that we give a proper view of what is happening in the countryside.

Mr. Kennedy: Would the Prime Minister also acknowledge that it is important for the House to send a proper signal to those businesses and those parts of our national community that are so severely affected? Does it send the proper signal for the House of Commons to introduce a Bill today that actually proposes giving financial compensation to potential council candidates when such compensation is not yet readily available to those being so affected by the present crisis? Should not we rethink that aspect of the legislation?

The Prime Minister: If we were not helping local authorities with additional expenditure, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would put to me the fact that they were having to cut back on services because of extra spending, so I do not agree with him on that.
On compensation, we are getting it through to people as quickly as we possibly can, but—as I hope he agrees—the single, most important thing for the tourism industry is that we send out the clear message that it is open for business, that the vast bulk of tourist attractions are open and that there is plenty for people to do in the countryside. We need that message to go out—not just from the Government Benches but from the Opposition Benches and local authorities as well.

John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the media coverage does Britain no favours and that the Opposition should be talking Britain up, not down?

The Prime Minister: It is important, while recognising the deep seriousness of the situation, that we at least give a proper sense of perspective; for example, even now, the number of slaughtered animals is less than 1 per cent. of the livestock of the country. It may help if I give the House the latest livestock sales in the normal course of business: 91 per cent. of pork sales are back to normal and for beef, the figure is about 78 per cent. Lamb is still down—at 40 per cent. However, that points to the fact that there is an awful lot of normal trade. When I am


going around the country, I find the desire on the part of both the farming and the tourism industries not only to emphasise the urgent and needy plight of those who are most affected by this disease, but to get the message across that vast parts of the country—still the vast majority—are not affected by foot and mouth disease. There are areas where there have been sporadic cases—as I saw for myself in Essex a short time ago—but over time, in the next few weeks, those areas should be able to move to a different status as the disease is cleared. Obviously, we must bear down in those areas where the disease is most rife. It is important to recognise that a proper sense of perspective is important not only for the tourism industry but for the farming industry.

Mr. Eric Forth: Ever since the outbreak of foot and mouth, the Prime Minister has repeatedly warned of the devastating effects on the British tourism industry of the postponement of elections. Since the Prime Minister's last-minute panic conversion to the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for elections to be postponed, what estimate has the Prime Minister made of the financial impact on the British tourism industry of that postponement?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether we have just heard a swift policy reversal. The Conservatives should make up their mind as to whether they are saying we were right to delay the elections, or wrong. The truth is that to delay them a short time is—in my view—a perfectly proper balance between the interests of setting up proper mechanisms to deal with the disease and the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—an indefinite delay of the democratic process—which may appeal to the Conservative party but is not in the national interest.

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The Prime Minister will be aware, from the letter that I have sent to him, of the murder in Moscow, on 26 September 1999, of Christopher Rees, a British journalist working for an American television company called Story First. Christopher's mother, Mrs. Jane Rees, is a constituent of mine. Will the Prime Minister please raise her son's case with the appropriate Russian authorities to ensure that progress is made in investigating that crime, as Mrs. Rees is concerned that little effort has been made by those authorities to find the culprit and prosecute?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the case of Mr. Rees. I will look into it for my hon. Friend, and I will be in touch with her about how we shall raise it with the Russian authorities in the appropriate way.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does the Prime Minister agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—that the first person who should be advised of his decisions on election dates is Her Majesty the Queen?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am sure that she will be.

Mr. Bill Michie: In respect of the Kyoto protocol, may I ask my right hon.

Friend the Prime Minister whether he will impress, as strongly as possible, on the President of the United States that the world is not owned by the United States, but is the property of every living soul on this planet? Will he remind him that the future of this planet does not rest with big business and profit, but with principled planning? Will he also remind him that anyone who has the power that the United States has has equal responsibility to mankind?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend probably knows, this country has made its position clear. We continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best framework to deal with climate change, which is a problem that affects rich and poor countries alike. It is of vital importance to the future of the world that we deal with that and the reduction of CO2 emissions. We obviously want to hear the views and ideas of the new Administration as to how we reduce those emissions, but for our own part, as I have said before, we think that the Kyoto protocol is the right way forward. I have no doubt at all that there will be intensive negotiations on that in the run-up to the next round of talks in July, and I hope that we can find agreement on a way forward.

Mr. David Prior: Is the Prime Minister aware that some 1.5 million animals, which do not have foot and mouth disease, are awaiting slaughter under the welfare to slaughter scheme and that many of those animals are suffering appalling welfare conditions, with little grazing and no shelter? When will that dreadful backlog be cleared?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly the point that I was making a moment or two ago. Obviously, the Intervention Board his had to deal with a vastly different range and number of cases than it ever anticipated. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have greatly increased the payments under the animal welfare scheme, so it is far more generous than the scheme in place before, but we are working to ensure that we clear the backlog of applications to the Intervention Board. We will do that as soon as we possibly can, although our first priority must be to ensure that we carry out the containment by slaughter policy.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the country faces no more serious long-terns problem than the degradation of our environment? Does he agree that the crazed policies coming from the White House are not our only difficulty? More parochially, people do not want an incinerator, a tip, a telecom mast and certainly not floods in their neighbourhood. Does he agree, however, that we cannot control such things unless every single citizen in this country recognises his or her responsibility—for example, to minimise the use of non-renewable fuels and to recycle? Therefore, does he not agree that his next Government must lead a crusade on our environment? After all, as someone once said, if the Labour party is not a crusade, it is nothing.

The Prime Minister: First, we have now set a target for recycling at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005 and we have set councils statutory targets to double recycling by 2003–04 and to triple it by 2005–06. In addition, we have committed almost £160 million of


new opportunities fund money for a programme of environmental renewal and community regeneration. I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a vast reservoir of good intention among members of the public to help in that process and, by putting in the lead investment, we hope to be able to mobilise that to improve the situation for the local environment in every part of the country.

Sir Michael Spicer: When will we have a proper and publicly announced decision on vaccination against foot and mouth?

The Prime Minister: As I explained to the House about 10 days ago—in fact, I think that it was even before that—vaccination is an option. We have put in place all the contingency planning necessary for it in certain circumstances, but there are also difficulties with vaccination. In the past 10 days, the number of new cases has, at present—we should not read too much into this—flattened out and we have to see whether that trend is maintained. In those circumstances, we continue to have vaccination as an option, but we need and want to see whether the containment by slaughter policy achieves the objectives desired.
I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman and to other Conservative Members shouting out for vaccination that there is a huge—at the very least—division of opinion within the farming community. The policy will be difficult to put in place unless the fanning community agrees to it. Vaccination remains an option if the containment by slaughter policy does not work, and we are keeping it under review. We have all the contingency planning necessary to implement it, but, at present, we believe that it is right to see the present policy working.

Ms Linda Perham: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcome the setting up a few weeks ago of a group to advise the Government on age issues in preparation for tackling age discrimination? What other measures do the Government have in place to make a real improvement to the lives of people over 50?

The Prime Minister: That is an important part of the Government's programme. We set up the age advisory group to advise the Government on the issues in respect of that, but I think that the important thing is that any legislation builds on what are many good practices in different parts of the country. Those need to be brought together so that we are able to ensure that there is an end to age discrimination in employment, which is not just wrong but counter-productive. Vast numbers of—let us say—more elderly people of working age are in the population and they perform an excellent task for their employers. They are often undervalued, and I hope very

much that my hon. Friend will see in the announcements that we make in the weeks ahead that the very issues that she has raised are properly dealt with.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister remind himself that, before each sitting of the House, prayer is offered to the God of heaven and earth? Would he also remind himself that, in days of crisis in this nation, the one who held his office advised the monarch from time to time to call a national day of prayer? Does he not feel that, in the present crisis, the nation should express its desire to have our nation healed, and that the way to have it healed is to call upon the sovereign God of heaven?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the nation will pray in its own way for what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know whether it is right for Government to impose that, but 1 am sure that, according to their own conscience and faith, people will pray for the objectives that he has set out.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we greatly welcome the massive investment that is going into school buildings and facilities, we also have an enormously dedicated and skilled teaching profession? Will he join me in paying tribute to that profession in the Wirral and elsewhere and welcome the figures published today of a 24 per cent. increase in teacher training applicants since last year?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to give the House the figures on that. There are now more than 5,000 more applicants this year than at the same time last year. Maths applications are up 20 per cent.; science applications are up 36 per cent.; modern language applications are up 17 per cent.; and technology applications are up 89 per cent. In addition, well over 11,000 schools up and down the country have benefited from new deal money. The two things that we can be sure of are that, if the Conservative party were elected, it would scrap the new deal money so that investment would go and that it is opposed to the additional investment in teachers. For both those reasons, I am sure that people in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere would prefer education to be in the charge of this Government.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Now that matron is coming back to sort out the chaos in our hospitals, will the Prime Minister consider bringing back the cane to sort out the chaos in our schools?

The Prime Minister: I thought at first that we were going to get a job application. As for the hon. Lady's question, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her. However, I am sure that she will agree that the one thing the national health service needs is extra investment, which we will continue to provide.

Points of Order

Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Prime Minister stretches every sinew to escape, has he or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asked to make a statement on the policy of transporting carcases that might be infected from an area such as Herefordshire to a clean area such as Tern Hill in my constituency?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that every day this week I have had to raise as a point of order my complete inability to persuade the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write to me outlining the circumstances in which a landfill site is being used in my constituency for the burial of carcases. It is difficult to say the same thing in a different way every time, but if Ministers will not answer letters from hon. Members and simply reply to every question that might cause them difficulty with the formula "I will write to the hon. Member", it makes it impossible for us to discharge our function. Do you know of any precedent that sets out when the occupant of the Chair has to intervene in such matters, or do you have to listen to me saying the same thing in a different way every day until Parliament is dissolved?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is not a matter for Chair.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that a decision has been taken that the national census will go ahead on 27 April. Have you received a request from any Minister to tell the House what precautions will be taken to ensure that those taking the census do not spread foot and mouth disease?

Mr. Speaker: I have received nothing from Ministers on that matter.

Mr. Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be in order for me to table amendments to the Elections Bill to ask for all by-elections to be cancelled up to 3 May, including the Carlisle by-election which is due to take place on 19 April and is being fought by the agent of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)?

Mr. Speaker: We have to see the amendment before we can make a decision. It is as simple as that.

Street Works

Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in relation to cable companies and other undertakers of street works.
The Bill sets out to ensure that there is better co-ordination of the work that is carried out by cable companies and utilities. My constituents tell me that it is needed. They find it incredible that one company can dig up a road one week, disrupting an entire area, only to find that two weeks later a different company digs up the road all over again.
Legislation has put in place a number of measures to minimise the disruption caused by such street works. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 provides that operators have to notify highway authorities with a minimum of one month's notice in advance of any major work or work to he carried out on sensitive streets, as defined by the local authority. The problem with the 1991 Act is that although it gives local authorities the duty to co-ordinate excavations of the public highway, they do not have sufficient powers to do so.
Correspondence on the issue with Ministers shows that they are aware of the problems and know that certain communities in the west and south-west have been particularly badly affected by new telecommunications installations. The Labour Government have recently introduced fines of up to £2,000 a day for companies if their road works are overdue, which is welcome, but the Bill seeks to minimise disruption further by ensuring there is proper co-ordination of street works. We expect new regulations later this year, and I hope that they will take on board the proposals in my Bill.
Currently, all local authorities hold quarterly meetings and invite operators to them to discuss a schedule of works. Too often, however, operators do not attend; if they do, they often do not provide accurate information. One authority told me that many companies send it nil returns for meetings, then proceed to send notices for large schemes that should have been on the co-ordination schedule. That has led to understandable frustration among road users in many parts of South Swindon, including parts of the town centre, Freshbrook, Liddington, Wanborough and Wroughton. Those frustrations have been expressed clearly to me by constituents and parish councils covering those and other areas. A classic case occurred last summer, when our local paper, the Evening Advertiser, reported that Manchester road, which houses our bus station and so has significant traffic flow, was dug up by one cable company; when it finished, another company started 10 days later. That cannot be a sensible way of proceeding.
There have been so many companies on the nearby stretch of road between Whale bridge and Fleming way that there is no room left, and there is now an embargo on the road. That raises the question of whether the number of companies, of which there are more than 300 nationally—so far, we have seen only about 20 of them locally— is ultimately sustainable.
There are some examples of good practice. Last July, Swindon borough council held talks with Cable and Wireless and Colt Telecom and an agreement was made that the two companies would share roadworks for their cable laying. But that good example is not common.
My Bill would make that good example more of the norm. It would make it a requirement for any company wishing to undertake major roadworks or any work on a sensitive street to attend the quarterly meeting of the authority. The local authority would then have a right to delay roadworks by up to a month or to bring them forward by up to two months to co-ordinate works. The authority could insist that companies share ducts and working arrangements. Colleagues may be concerned that that will delay consumers getting services and I recognise that telecoms companies have to respond quickly to consumer demand. However, with proper planning, there should be no significant delay and consumer demands have to be weighed against the inconvenience, misery to road users and business and social time that are lost as a result of disruption. Recent research by the Transport Research Laboratory has put the cost of roadworks to Britain's economy at more than £2 billion a year, including traffic delays, damage to road surfaces and accidents; the lack of co-ordination is costing the nation huge sums.
I do not want to leave this opportunity without recognising that co-ordination is not the only problem with roadworks; my constituents raise questions with me about the quality of the some roadworks and the safety precautions taken for the staff and public at the works. Better regulations are needed to ensure that local authorities are properly reimbursed for the work that they undertake. At the moment, some council taxpayers subsidise cable companies for their work and that should be corrected.
I hope that all those issues will be addressed in Government guidance and existing regulation, but the greatest frustration of unnecessary misery on the roads could be put right through the measures in my Bill. I want to stress that it is not about increasing regulation, but about changing it. I therefore propose that there should be new sections 60 and 64 in the 1991 Act, and that sections 54, 55 and 56 should be deleted. So five existing clauses would become two and, more importantly, we would achieve a much better result for the public.
Finally, in a bid to stop anyone saying that the Bill should not have a Second Reading because ten-minute Bills rarely reach the statute book, may I note and thank the many hon. Members of all parties who have expressed support for it, and tell the House that my first ten-minute Bill achieved success when its recommendation was adopted by the Government in the Homes Bill. I hope that the sensible improvement for road users proposed in this Bill will, in the same fashion, be adopted by the Government so that road users will not be unnecessarily disrupted in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Julia Drown, Valerie Davey, Mr. David Drew, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Andrew George, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Martin Salter, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. Simon Thomas, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Mc. Tom Brake

STREET WORKS

Ms Julia Drown accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to cable companies and other undertakers of street works: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Elections Bill and Election Publications Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), which stands in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in paragraph 1(1), after "on Second Reading," to leave out
in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading".

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords]—

Timing of proceedings on the Elections Bill

1.—(1) On the Elections Bill, proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.

2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Timing of proceedings on the Election Publications Bill [Lords]

3.—(1) On the Election Publications Bill [Lords], proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock.

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; and
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Questions to be put

4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3.

(2) The Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or under sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill

5.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.

6.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 5.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages of the Elections Bill

7.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

8.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 7.


(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Elections Bill

9.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Elections Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Subsequent stages of the Election Publications Bill [Lords]

10.—(1) Any Message (or further Message) from the Lords on the Election Publications Bill [Lords] shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on arty Message (or further Message) from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

11.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Election Publications Bill [Lords]

12.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Election Publications Bill [Lords] and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.


(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

l3.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.


(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

14.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
16.—(1) The Question on any Motion m tde by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(3) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

17. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Those who are experts in the number of guillotine motions that have been before the House since the war—those who are not experts are recommended to read the research document available, as ever, in the Library—will know that it is not unusual for a single allocation of time motion to be moved in respect of two Bills. However, the circumstances of this allocation of time motion are unusual, although they are not unprecedented.

Most allocation of time motions arise because of the Government's difficulties in getting a normal Bill through all its proceedings, owing to problems in securing the Opposition's co-operation. That is a timeless verity, and it is true regardless of which party fills the Treasury Benches. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says from a sedentary position, "Oh yes, quite routine." It was routine for guillotine motions to be moved in the 1980s, and some of us remember those.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Fewer than three.

Mr. Straw: No, there were not fewer than three guillotine motions in the 1980s. The number of guillotine

motions is principally a function of the way in which an Opposition behave. There were a large number of guillotine motions in the 1980s, because the then Opposition, of whom I was a Front-Bench member, decided that they were not willing to co-operate in sensible informal understandings about the timetabling of motions. For reasons that I fully understood, although I sometimes vociferously disagreed with them at the time, the Government therefore decided, rightly, that they were entitled to get their business through, and tabled guillotine motions accordingly.
There were far fewer guillotine motions in the latter part of the 1992 to 1997 Parliament, because by that stage, after 15, 16 or 17 years in opposition, the Labour party had learned a lesson—that it made a great deal more sense to spend time debating the heart of a Bill, agreeing sensible timetables, ensuring that they could be delivered by effective internal party discipline, and then getting out to campaign.

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
That strategy was far more impressive. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) shakes his head, but if he studies the facts, he will see that to have been the case. He will also see that, at greater length than I propose to do so today, I have offered gratuitous but, I hope, welcome advice to the Opposition in their current predicament. It would be against my interests for them to accept that advice, but it is available to them.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. I always do.
Two of the guillotine motions during our time in opposition were ones with which we agreed. Those included the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996, which passed through all its stages during Easter 1996.

Mr. Forth: Does the Home Secretary's research tell him how many guillotines were introduced during the glorious period of Conservative Government to ensure that Bills passed through all their stages within one hour? Does he not recognise that the Government's introduction of such a requirement is not only extraordinary and exceptional, but is an insult to our parliamentary process? What is the precedent for their actions?

Mr. Straw: I could while away the time, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the precedent that was set only a few days ago in the other place, where, without timetabling, every single stage of the Bill's consideration was completed in 24 minutes. That was achieved because the Bill was agreed in terms by the three main parties and because the Government had introduced it at their request. If the Opposition in this House were capable of even a modicum of the discipline that is possible in the other place, a guillotine motion would not be needed. The right hon. Gentleman wears a badge of honour. His party is so deeply divided that it is absolutely impossible for its leader or Whips ever to gain the agreement of their Back Benchers, and he knows it, as he


is one of the rebels. Indeed, he is one of the many Opposition Back Benchers who hold their Front-Bench colleagues in almost utter and undisguised contempt, and who will lose almost no opportunity to embarrass them.

Miss Widdecombe: After that long diatribe, will the Home Secretary please answer the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? When have any Government taken a Bill through Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading in 60 minutes flat?

Mr. Straw: I have just answered the right hon. Lady's question by referring to the other place, which recognised that the Bill was agreed on. It is widely known that the other place usually takes rather longer to complete such deliberations, as it has no guillotine arrangements. However, as it was understood that the Bill had been agreed on because it sought to remedy—

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in your wisdom, you have selected two amendments for discussion in relation to this Bill whose consideration will be limited to one hour? As the Home Secretary is seeking to misinform us, it would be helpful to know that that is the case and that the amendments are relevant.

Mr. Speaker: The amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will be considered in Committee. I did not select them for consideration; they were selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the reasons for introducing the Bill, after which—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is bad tempered today—very bad tempered indeed.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady is bad tempered every day, Mr. Speaker, but we all get used to it. It is a bit like the weather. Life would not be the same without her sedentary mutterings, for which we have come to show so much affection.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Home Secretary said that the Bill was passed in the other place by agreement, but I understand that there was opposition. The speeches made by the former leader of the Ulster Unionist party could not in any way be said to have commended the Bill. In this House, can smaller parties from Northern Ireland now take it that we are not considered at all? We did not receive the Elections Bill in good time, and we have received apologies for that, which we have accepted. How is three-way agreement achieved when the main part of that Bill, which we will discuss today, is to do with Northern Ireland? Surely representatives from Northern Ireland should have been properly consulted and given time for proper debate.

Mr. Straw: With respect, I was talking about the second Bill, the Election Publications Bill, because I had been led on to that subject. I shall return later to the main

Bill before the House, to which more time has been allocated, although I accept that the time is limited. In that Bill, by far the greatest number of words is related to Northern Ireland, and of course I will take any interventions from the hon. Gentleman in respect of that.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed on the Election Publications Bill, I will take an intervention later.
The publications Bill is a short, three-clause Bill that has been introduced following representations from all three main parties. All parties have many thousands of prospective candidates throughout the country and are likely to be in the same difficulty regarding the new imprint requirements, and we need to regularise the position as soon as possible. The fact that local elections are to be postponed for five weeks does not alter the need to proceed expeditiously. I have already explained that last week the other place took 23 minutes to give the Bill a Second Reading, and the remaining stages were taken in two minutes flat.
I want to deal with the suggestion made last week by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, and now by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, that the need for the Bill has arisen because of flawed drafting in the original Bill. That is not the case. The original Bill was the subject of considerable discussion by the parties. There was then further consultation with the parties about the commencement order, which could have made effectively the same provisions as this Bill: a phased introduction of the new sections and the continuation for a period of the existing section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I consulted all the parties, and none of them noticed—neither did I, but I am in good company—that the consequence of the commencement order was to place every potential candidate in a situation where any material that had been printed but not formally published in advance of the new sections coming into force could technically have put them, their agents and, possibly, their printers at risk of criminal proceedings. Obviously, that was unacceptable.
Discussions rapidly took place between the parties in a different atmosphere from the one that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has tried to generate. We agreed not that the new Bill would repeal those words but that it would provide for them to be phased in in a different way and that the original section 110 would be deemed to have taken effect. [Interruption.] It has to be deemed so to be enforced. It is not the first time that such words have been used in amending the law and it will not be the last. We reinstated section 110 and suspended the operation of the new Act and there will be further consultation about bringing the provisions into force after the forthcoming elections.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Before the beginning of the Second Reading of the publications Bill, will the Home Secretary place in the Library the documentation appertaining to the consultation that lie says he carried out? I am aware that on 4 November 1999, a senior Home Office official


consulted about matters to do with the hiring of hackney carriages, committee rooms and planned changes to election law petitions, but there was no mention of the imprint in that consultation. On 17 January 2000, the same official wrote to 100 registered parties to say that the Home Office
aim to issue regular bulletins to registered parties on the Bill's progress.
No such progress has been the subject of consultation with any political party.

Mr. Straw: I shall do my best to comply with the hon. Lady's—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Allow me to finish my answer to the shadow Leader of the House. I shall do my best to comply—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman until I have dealt with his hon. Friend's question. He should show more manners than he usually does in debates.
I shall do my best to comply with the hon. Lady's request, and if we cannot get the documents, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give her a more detailed response. My clear recollection is that the parties were consulted about the bringing into force of parts of that Act, and we consulted about the orders. In any case, I shall get back to the hon. Lady about that.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how the new wording "promoting of a candidate" helps to enhance the electorate's understanding of the documents? What was wrong with the old wording "printed and published by"?

Mr. Straw: Some people may say that there was nothing particularly wrong with the old wording. It was put to the House that we should make it clearer on whose behalf—[Interruption.] I shall give the hon. Gentleman an explanation if he wants one, otherwise I shall not bother to take interventions and we shall just plough on. It is quite straightforward.
The formula "printed and published" has been used for locally produced publicity for decades, and works satisfactorily. In material printed and published on behalf of a candidate, it is obvious who the candidate is. The new provisions aim to deal with two problems. First, in material published on behalf of third parties, it is not always obvious on whose behalf it is published. The material may attack a candidate, or it may ask people to vote for candidates who support one proposition rather than another. The second matter, which was not dealt with under the Representation of the People Act 1983, concerns nationally produced material.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now going into the detail of the Bill rather than the allocation of time.

Mr. Straw: The timetable motion is necessary because we have had to amend the original provisions in the

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Furthermore, in the past there have been no requirements in respect of material produced nationally. Now that we have a regime for expenditure, it is important that we know on what that expenditure has been based.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Dominic Grieve: rose—

Mr. Straw: In view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I shall make some progress, and then accept a few more interventions. As ever, I have taken a large number of interventions.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way. I shall come back to that matter later.
As Conservative Members are concerned about precedents, I have been told that in 1989 the Gaming (Amendment) Bill went through Second Reading and remaining stages without debate.

Mr. Forth: Was there a guillotine?

Mr. Straw: There was almost certainly not a guillotine, because there were not people like the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: What about Bob Cryer?

Mr. Straw: Bob Cryer was an infinitely better parliamentarian than the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). As I remember, at the time the right hon. Gentleman had taken the Queen's shilling and with that a Trappist vow of silence to obey the Whips, so we did not have anarchist interventions from him.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall now make some progress, because other hon. Members want to speak.
I took representations on the new provisions that have been brought into force. I can tell the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that letters were sent to a variety of people consulting them on the orders. A letter dated 12 December 2000 was sent to Mr. Stephen Gilbert in the Conservative party and to equivalent people in other parties. [Interruption.] I gather from the hon. Member for Buckingham Mr. Bercow that he is a great man, so at least we know he exists and that some people have a high opinion of him. That makes it even more odd that he was not able to impart that information to the shadow Leader of the House. Anyway, I had representations about the effects of the proposals.
At this point, I must declare an interest. At about the time when representations were being made by the national parties, I was going through my cellar and my attic in Blackburn, and came across a large stock of posters, some dating back to the 1980s.

Mr. Hogg: We shall be looking at your election expenses!

Mr. Straw: No, that will all be taken into account.
The posters bore messages such as "We back Jack", "Get Jack back" and "Let's back Jack". They have always worked in the past, and I look forward to their working in the future. We have been careful never to put a time or a date on the out-slips. We have not gone quite so far as going to collect them back—[Interruption.] They do in other parts of Lancashire, according to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who I am pleased to see is with us again. I thought it ridiculous, however, for us to be prevented from using such messages by a technicality. I am sorry that the arrangements were introduced in the way that they were; I did not spot the error and neither did my officials, but nor, it must be said, did the other parties.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham, as he has been straining at the leash.

Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary's tutorial on succinct slogans for deployment in Blackburn is doubtless very illuminating, but I am rather more concerned about the deplorable way in which he has rewritten history. Is he unaware that—to name but one example—my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has emphasised several times that when he was a Minister in the last Government, he did not even consider talking to either the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip about the possibility of a guillotine motion until debate on the Bill for which he was responsible had lasted for at least 100 hours?

Mr. Straw: I think it was 80 hours, but we can argue about that. There was a convention, but it was sometimes left in abeyance when the Conservatives were in power. Moreover—I have a list here—it was extremely rare, certainly after my right hon. Friend the current Prime Minister had become Leader of the Opposition, for any Bill to be guillotined. That was because the Opposition changed the way in which they behaved.
There was no necessity for the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border to consult the Leader of the House or anyone else about a guillotine when I was shadow Home Secretary, because, with two exceptions, the welter of Home Office legislation contained no Bills that we forced to a guillotine. We sensibly agreed a timetable, in a much shorter time than 80 hours.
Yes, we had our disagreements about Bills. Some were very strong disagreements; in other cases we may have agreed with the overall purpose of the Bill, but disagreed with parts of it. We got on with things and did the business, however, and we represented our constituents better than we would have done by keeping ourselves here until the small hours and making life incomprehensible to the voters. The two exceptions that I mentioned were the guillotine on the Bill that became the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996, which I agreed to because I was supporting the then Home Secretary—others may have thought that those powers were not necessary—and the guillotine on what became the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which was

introduced in the wake of the massacre at Dunblane. We supported that Bill, although we did not think that it went far enough. My recollection is that the guillotine was introduced very quickly, well in advance of the 80-hours rule. The concern was that the Bill would be disrupted by people who did not want firearms controls.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I confess that I am now totally bewildered. We are discussing a timetable on the Elections Bill. May I enter a little caveat? I disagree with everything that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says, but in this instance he has a point. It is terribly important that the House of Commons should not rush through legislation without being clear what it is doing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the Bills that he has mentioned, particularly that on prevention of terrorism, are clear examples of what happens when this House accepts legislation in one day? It then has to spend considerable time amending it.

Mr. Straw: I accept that it will be far better—it makes for much better debate, too—if there can be agreements between the parties. It is sometimes necessary—on this occasion, it is palpably necessary—for there to be a timetable motion. Sometimes, timetable motions are short, but agreement between the parties requires that the parties themselves are able to maintain some discipline. We were not in that position in the 1980s. We were in that position in the 1990s. I regret to say—although, in the end, it is their problem, not ours—that the current Opposition are not in that position.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I promise to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a few minutes, after I have had made some further progress.
I come to the reason for the timetable on the Elections Bill. The case for the Elections Bill was made at some length, as was, to some extent, the case against it, so far as one could understand it, during the exchanges on my statement on Monday. When I looked at Hansard, I noticed that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald went on for twice as long as I had in my original statement and it still was not particularly clear what exactly she was saying.
Although there is argument about the date to which the elections should be deferred—the Opposition say that they should be deferred without date and we say, as I believe do the Liberal Democrats, that they should be deferred until 7 June—there is no argument between the main parties that they should be deferred from 3 May. That being the case, they must be deferred very quickly. Otherwise, the electoral process will simply continue. It has to. Money has to continue to be spent unless and until the Bill is passed by the House and by the other place.
On Monday, I went into detail—I will go into further detail on Second Reading—to explain why we believe that it is inappropriate in terms not only of the process of elections, tourism and other factors, but of the conduct of local councils and their ability to represent their electors, to defer the elections for any significant time past 7 June. There is an argument about whether the date should be 7, 14 or 21 June. That is a choice, but it was plain to me when


I was explaining the matter in the House on Monday that many Opposition Members simply had not worked out what the consequences would be of an indefinite deferral of local elections. In making the case for the urgent timetable motion, I will briefly spell that out.
If the elections are deferred indefinitely, one of two consequences will follow. One is that all by-elections will be deferred indefinitely. If that happens, with increasing frequency, existing members of councils, who I am sure will be willing to serve for an extra five weeks, but who were to have resigned on 3 May, or were not seeking renomination on 3 May, will resign because they have decided—or their party has decided on their behalf—not to serve for a further term. As I explained to the House, at each election—it is a surprisingly high figure—there is a turnover of about a quarter of councillors. They go. Therefore, over the coming months, we would find that 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of councillors had resigned. Sadly, some vacancies result from deaths.
As vacancies arose, for inevitable reasons, such as illness and death, the control of councils would start to shift as the balance changed randomly between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, or Conservatives and independents, simply because of resignations and deaths and not through the decision of the electorate. That must be wrong and would cause chaos in the administration of councils.
The alternative would be to continue to allow by-elections to take place, but we would then have a stream of by-elections, which have to be called within 35 days of a vacancy arising and to take place within 25 working days of that declaration—there is little of the flexibility that we have in respect of parliamentary by-elections—in the very rural areas where the disruption caused by foot and mouth is at its greatest.
If that course—logically and administratively, the better course—were followed, the weekly or bi-weekly by-elections in Cumbria and Devon would be more disruptive to rural life there and to the focus on foot and mouth than having a single day for the local elections, as we are proposing.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise for taking the Home Secretary back to what he was saying earlier on the Election Publications Bill and why the errors were made. Does that not illustrate why it would be helpful if we resorted more often to Special Standing Committees, allowing evidence to be taken and problems to come to light before a Bill is considered in detail?

Mr. Straw: As a health warning and caveat to my remarks, let me say that these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but personally I think that there is a lot in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He will forgive me if I remind him that in opposition we used to argue for Special Standing Committees, and one was used for the Children Act 1989—

Mr. Hogg: No, it was—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he must be quiet when he is seated.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You are absolutely right. I was trying to correct the Home Secretary, but you are right.

Mr. Speaker: I am always right.

Mr. Hogg: May I say how pleased I am to know that?

Mr. Straw: I am sometimes wrong, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be right that it was not the Children Act but a special education measure on which we had a Special Standing Committee. Leaving that aside, I introduced a Special Standing Committee for the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and it was the better for it, so I accept that point.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: It would be a very useful development if a Cabinet Minister such as my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to the House that in future all Bills from his Department would be treated under that procedure. Once one Cabinet Minister took that decision in principle, others would follow. It is not only a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. How we treat Bills is nothing to do with the allocation of time motion. We must restrict ourselves to that.

Mr. Straw: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I will have to talk to my hon. Friend in the Tea Room.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am concerned that we will not have time to reach clause 2, which relates to Northern Ireland. Is the Home Secretary confident that we will be able to have a proper debate on Northern Ireland, because some issues need to be discussed that make us nervous about the potential change of date?

Mr. Straw: I accept the concern of the hon. Gentleman, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Northern Ireland matters. I have also had representations from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the provisions as they affect Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with those matters when he replies.
I have explained the case for both Bills—with a bit of luck, to the satisfaction of both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Opposition Members have been shot down in flames by their request for a precedent. The Gaming (Amendment) Act is a great precedent. The fact that it was not guillotined is neither here nor there; it was passed. My guess is that that legislation was far more significant to far more people than the Election Publications Bill will ever be, as it will affect only the small minority of those who are candidates or agents for elections. That is the precedent.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
I should also add that, in the other place, the official representatives of the other parties were happy to co-operate in the consideration of the Election Publications Bill.
The Elections Bill will defer the date of the elections. As I said, there is widespread agreement on both sides of the House that they have to be deferred. Although there is disagreement on the date to which they should be deferred, that does not affect the need for urgency. What does affect the need for urgency is the fact that, if we do not produce certainty and ensure that everyone is given the legal certainty that 3 May is no longer the date for the elections and that another date has been inserted, we will simply waste a great deal of money and the time of local government staff, candidates, agents and their helpers.
For those reasons—although I understand the concerns about guillotine motions and I do not like introducing them—I hope that the House will accept my arguments.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have to say that, even for the Home Secretary, that speech was preposterous. The last time he moved a guillotine motion, he concluded his speech by saying:
I look forward to the embraces and kisses of the Opposition."—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 994.]

Mr. Hogg: Of you, Ann.

Miss Widdecombe: Well, he said the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman received neither embraces nor kisses on that occasion, and he will certainly not receive any from Opposition Members today. There is no justification whatsoever for what can be described only as an outrageous and absurd guillotine motion, tabled by the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House. The motion will hinder the interests of democracy and of our constituents, who send us here to hold the Government to account and to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament are in good order, well thought through and properly scrutinised.
It is only a couple of weeks since three Members of the Conservative Whips Office and I were sufficiently incensed by the lack of true accountability by the Government to try to bring the issue to wider public attention. Today, we have two more justifications for that sit-in.
Later, in one hour flat, we shall put a Bill through all its stages in the House—a Bill that would never have been necessary if the House had been allowed to scrutinise the original Bill properly. The amendment that it seeks to correct was never put to the House for debate and was introduced at a late stage in the other place. Yet, undeterred by having created such a mess that an emergency Bill is now necessary, the Government still push it through without any attempt at serious scrutiny.
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman—I have challenged him before and I challenge him again—to tell me of any other occasion, under any Government, when a Bill on the constitution was taken through Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading in 60 minutes flat at the behest of a Government on an imposed guillotine.

Mr. Hogg: Not only that, but the Bill was published yesterday without any pre-publication discussion or consultation.

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is right: that only makes the situation vastly worse.
Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that he is insulting this Holm and the British people? They are being governed by tranches of law that have never been debated by the House, much less voted on.

Mr. Forth: The matter is even worse than my right hon. Friend suggests. As it happens, an amendment that I tabled to the Elections Publications Bill has been selected. It was known to have been selected, yet the Government tabled this vicious guillotine, allocating one hour for all stages, in the knowledge that the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected an amendment. Since then, another amendment tabled in the name of an hon. Member from another party has been selected. Does not that compound the matter beyond all endurance?

Miss Widdecombe: It certainly does. Large numbers of amendments to both Bills will not be debated tonight. We have already seen the consequence of such an approach. We would not have had to debate the Election Publications Bill today if there had been proper scrutiny of the original Bill.
I remind the Home Secretary of his words to the House on 4 April last year, of which today's debate may be considered to be the anniversary:
It is in the nature of Home Office Bills, particularly constitutional ones, that they are subject to amendment. That is an important part of the process.—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c.928.]
On 29 November last year, the Home Secretary said:
I thank individual Opposition Members as much as my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which every Bill in which I have been involved has been improved as a result of the parliamentary process."—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357. c. 987.]
Yet it is that important part of the constitutional process, which has resulted in the improvement of every Bill with which the Home Secretary has been involved, that the right hon. Gentleman is dispensing with this evening.
What is the justification for the guillotine motion? It is not as though the Opposition are trying to delay or frustrate the Elections Bill. As I made clear in response to the Home Secretary's statement on Monday afternoon, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have decided—albeit belatedly—to provide for a postponement of the local elections, which were due to take place on 3 May. Indeed, it was the Opposition who first called, more than two weeks ago, for such a measure to be introduced.
The Election Publications Bill is also the subject of cross-party consensus, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, and as he knows full well. There is not a shred of evidence to support the contention that, without a guillotine, the Opposition would attempt to delay or frustrate the Bill, yet these days the House cannot expect much more from a Home Secretary and a Leader of the House who had the audacity only a few weeks ago to deem that the Committee stage of a major Bill had been completed, despite the fact that more than half its text had never been considered.
So what is the real reason for the motion? The House, and especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), will recall the attitude of Labour Members during the Committee stage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—and of one Labour Member in


particular. During that Committee, which also sat on the Floor of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who at the time graced the Opposition Front Bench, made some extremely powerful points about the Government's proposals on referendum rules. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), refused to respond to the debate. In justification, he said:
Hon. Members in all parts of the House will understand that some hon. Members want to go home. One can understand that."— [Official Report, 16 February 2001; Vol. 344, c. 1071.]
The Minister made those remarks at midnight. One can therefore understand perfectly well why the guillotine motion will cut short debate this evening at 11 pm: Labour Members will want to go home, rather than stay here and ensure that the legislation being considered by the House, which goes to the very heart of our democracy, is in good order.
The right hon. Gentleman is again moving a guillotine motion on constitutional legislation, which shows exactly what the Government think about both these important constitutional measures and about the need for consensus and agreement on them.
What happened to the right hon. Gentleman? He said in February 1995:
You can only move for constitutional change by consensus, by consent, and you've got to get these things right.
When the House considers the Elections Publications Bill later tonight, right hon. and hon. Members will see exactly how the right hon. Gentleman failed to get things right in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) will have more to say on that subject when the time comes.
The guillotine motion means that the House will have very little time, if any, in which to consider the important amendments that have been tabled on a range of crucial electoral issues. Indeed, when the Government amendments are made in Committee and the House proceeds to consideration on Report, the farcical procedure that applied to the Football (Disorder) Bill in the previous Session will apply again. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) must be calm. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Lady will withdraw that remark. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Lady will get to her feet and withdraw that remark.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I was simply saying—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the right hon. Lady talk about misleading the House.

Ms Armstrong: I said that I was concerned that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was not going to mislead the House. I withdraw everything.

Miss Widdecombe: Does the Home Secretary recall the proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill, when the

House was forced to consider amendments on Report that had not been printed to a Bill that had not been reprinted? Furthermore, although my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) wanted to retable his Committee amendments, which had not been discussed in Committee because of the guillotine, he was not able to do so because in waiting to discuss them in Committee he missed the deadline for Report.
I described the procedure as a farce, and that is exactly what it was. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) commented:
The House has been asked to consider amendments on Report to a Bill that was not even before us simply because it had not been printed as amended in Committee. People who had not been here would not have been able to follow debate on the Bill that we were amending, and those of us who were here all day have found it difficult to follow the implications of each and every amendment.— [Official Report, 17 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 176.]
Even the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
I am acutely aware of criticisms about the time taken to address the Bill and consider its various aspects."—[Official Report, 17 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 173.]
Yet, despite that experience and the Minister's comments, the guillotine motion before the House today takes no account of those criticisms and no account of the experience on that Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: One of the Bills before us contains a reference to schedule 1 of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001. There is no such Act. As a good parliamentarian, I asked to see all the Acts, and I was told that there is no such Act. The Bill provides for the amendment of an Act that does not exist.

Miss Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his close scrutiny. The point of having a debate is that the House can provide close scrutiny, but it will be denied to us today. Before the Government produce a flawed Bill, perhaps they will very hastily consider the hon. Gentleman's important contribution.
There is not even a provision for a five-minute delay in which to allow right hon. and hon. Members to table amendments for Report or to allow the Bill to be reprinted. In a few hours, the House will be faced with the same unacceptable situation. Indeed, it will be even more unacceptable, because only one hour will be allowed for Report and Third Reading, so there will almost certainly be no Third Reading debate.
It is all the more important for the House to have adequate time to consider the Elections Bill, above all in view of the hasty way in which it has been put together. I believe that it has been even more hastily drafted than the Football (Disorder) Bill, which was considered and consulted on for almost a week, if I remember correctly, yet a large number of improvements were subsequently made to it, several of which resulted from matters first raised in Opposition amendments.
The Elections Bill has been cobbled together in what must have been a matter of hours. Throughout last month, the Government, mostly through the Prime Minister's official spokesman, made it clear not only that they had no proposals to introduce legislation of this nature but that they were not even working on contingency plans—so we all know how much notice the Cabinet, above all the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, had of the reversal of that decision.
Hon. Members from all parties have already identified parts of the Bill that could be improved, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has identified where the Bill is just plain nonsense. It is important that the House has time to consider the points that have been made, but even if the debate on the guillotine motion does not run for three hours, which is what the Government have allowed, the House will not get far past the Second Reading debate and, if it is extremely lucky, a couple of groups of amendments, before the guillotine falls. Important issues such as limiting the compensation scheme to independent candidates, as we have proposed, will not be debated. Nor will we debate the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on compensation for the expenditure incurred by the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland.
Other important amendments tabled by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will not be discussed, including those on combining polling cards for the local and national elections and those tabled by Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist Members on whether counting agents should be allowed to be present when ballot papers placed in the wrong box are sorted out.
The Home Secretary will recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who spoke for the Opposition on the guillotine motion that the Home Secretary moved on 29 November. He said:
We value the Home Secretary's reputation as someone who is serious about this place. He is in such stark contrast to the Prime Minister and others who treat the Chamber in a cavalier way."—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 994.]
My right hon. Friend then commented that the Home Secretary was tarnishing that reputation by moving the guillotine on that occasion. Today, the Home Secretary has no reputation for taking this place seriously. In the past, his guillotines have produced chaos in the Chamber and, as the House will see later when it considers the Election Publications Bill, botched legislation that need not have been a mess had this arrogant and dictatorial Government had any respect for the usual democratic processes.
The motion is an affront to the House and to the people who sent us here, who expect us to spend more than a few minutes on important proposals: that we will not do so is testament to the arrogance of the Government—an arrogance that will not be forgotten in the coming weeks as the guillotine falls on this contemptuous, arrogant, incompetent, out-of-touch, control-freak Government when the election comes, if it does come, on 7 June.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Like the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats broadly support both the Bills that are the subject of the guillotine motion. The Government, having weighed the matter up carefully, have decided that the local government elections should be deferred from 3 May to 7 June, and my party supports them. Equally, the issue of the imprints and the introduction of the new regulations is an important one for the political parties. The Home Secretary is right to point to the fact that all three political parties were in favour of that change, and indeed urged that it should be made.
As far as I can understand it, all three major political parties in the House agree that the legislation is fit and proper for the House to consider and that it ought to be passed without unreasonable delay.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that large sections of the Elections Bill that refer to Northern Ireland have nothing to do with such supervening factors as foot and mouth, which bring the three major parties into agreement to support the principle of the Bill?

Mr. Stunell: I fully understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on that matter. I was careful to make it clear that I was speaking on behalf only of the Liberal Democrats—I have made clear my views on that point. Several issues of detail in both Bills attracted the attention of my colleagues and me. Were the debate to be of sufficient length and thoroughness, we would want those matters to be included.
Given the broad consensus in the House and the willingness on both sides that progress be made with reasonable speed, the guillotine is out of place, unnecessary and probably counter-productive. Apart from any other consideration, even if such a guillotine were thought appropriate, the time allocated is ridiculously short for debate on inch serious issues.
The House and one of its Committees—the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, on which I serve—have spent a great deal of time working out how the House could be more effective in the examination and rectification of legislation. In pursuit of that aim, I put questions to the Leader of the House. She assured me that one characteristic of the Labour Government was that they were improving the first drafts of Bills—the quality of measures when they are first put before the House is so much better that she wants to claim some credit for that.
I tabled a parliamentary question to establish the ratio of clauses, as introduced, to subsequent Government amendments in legislation under the previous Conservative Government and under the Labour Government. I thought it appropriate to set up some quality control to judge whether the claim made by the Leader of the House was soundly based. The answer was that the cost of working out the figures would be disproportionate. That is a circumlocutory way of saying that there is no evidence whatever to support the claim that the quality of legislation is better—or, indeed, worse—under the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the truth that the quality of legislation improves only to the extent that there is discussion and consultation before publication? In cases such as these Bills—by definition—there is neither.

Mr. Stunell: I strongly support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument—indeed, I am probably ahead of him, because I have deployed such an argument in the Modernisation Committee, although not all his hon. Friends felt as confident of it as me.
That brings us to the question of whether the time allowed under the guillotine is anything like sufficient to accommodate the issues raised by the Bills. I did not hear the Home Secretary suggest that he believes for a moment


that the range of amendments submitted—nor those selected by either the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee—is outrageous, perverse or out of order. A total of 50 amendments to the Elections Bill have been selected for debate. Approximately 50 others were not selected—I have not made an exact count. That is a large number of amendments covering substantial and important issues. Even after the latest list was printed, a further seven manuscript amendments were submitted but, of course, the House will not really have an opportunity to evaluate their importance.
Some of the issues for debate might be dismissed quite quickly by the House. It might decide that they are matters solely for debate, not for serious consideration, but one or two issues are clearly above the threshold of being available merely for debate. Compensation for candidates, which is dealt with in the Bill, is a matter on which my right hon. and hon. Friends have commented very unfavourably. Will there be an opportunity to debate that and to take a decision on it?
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) raised with me the issue of Northern Ireland. In fact, a substantial proportion of the Elections Bill relates to Northern Ireland, and issues have been raised about the difficulties that might be caused by holding the local elections and the general election simultaneously and about the fact that—at least, at present—we can give thanks that there is no foot and mouth in Northern Ireland, and so on. Will there be time for those issues to be discussed?
I understand that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has proposed in some amendments that the elections might be deferred to different dates in different areas. Those important issues might be dealt with quickly, but they certainly merit debate.
The Bill contains errors. For example, in deferring the annual meetings of councils as a consequence of deferring the local elections, police and joint fire authorities were overlooked, so we find that the dates of their annual meetings are not in synchronisation with the new timetable. Surely that needs to be discussed and rectified.
I noticed, by the new magic medium of e-mail, that the Home Office has today had to reissue its circular to returning officers, drawing their attention to an error in the timetable that it had included in the circular that it issued yesterday. Yet again, that shows not just the haste and speed—all of which is desirable, as we want all these things to be done—but the fact that there are issues before the House that even the Home Office has not squared and got ready to go.
Surely the right way forward is to allow not only reasonable time to debate those issues, but reasonable time to elapse for people to get their thinking caps on, so that they can anticipate and steer around the difficulties that may be thrown up. To advocate doing that is not to say that the Bill should not be passed, nor that it should be delayed, but simply to say that the Bill should receive proper scrutiny in the first place, so that we get it right first time.
I shall comment for a moment or two on the Election Publications Bill, with which the House will also deal tonight as a result of the guillotine. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the original Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and I spoke on

behalf of the Liberal Democrats at each stage of the debate. The Committee was unusual. My experience of such matters is that Standing Committees are sometimes blessed with a few experts in the particular topic, but seldom is 100 per cent. of the membership made up of experts—yet every hon. Member on that Standing Committee was an expert. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will remember that we crawled over the detail of that Bill perhaps almost to excess, but such matters were not at the forefront of our consideration.
I understand that the Bill is intended to ensure that third-party endorsements of particular candidates—or, more likely, third-party attacks on them—are properly attributed in future. Clearly, all political parties would understand the need for, and the desirability of, that proposal, but they would also understand that is not practical to introduce it now, given the very compressed timetable that is proposed.
I remind the Home Secretary and the Minister that one of the questions that was persistently asked of the Home Office team in Committee was whether they thought that electoral commissioners could be put in place and produce their rulings and guidance in time for a general election that, even then, was widely expected to take place about now. Home Office Ministers were sure that everything would be put in place and that we would be satisfied. However, that has not been possible.
We will have only an hour to debate the Election Publications Bill. That may be sufficient, because only two amendments have been tabled. They cover exactly the same point even though they propose slightly different mechanisms to deal with it. In due course, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate them. However, the amendments refer to the Home Secretary's capacity—alone and unaided—to reintroduce the proposals that I mentioned entirely without consultation. Therefore, it is important to the House that we debate that issue, so that either the amendments are accepted or we receive cast-iron assurances from the Government and the Home Secretary about their future behaviour. It is one thing to suspend the provisions almost without notice, but it might be another to introduce them—or perhaps deliberately to fail to introduce them—when it is appropriate to do so entirely on the fiat of the Home Secretary.
Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should lift the guillotine and withdraw the motion. They should let the debate take its course, because they would be pleasantly surprised at the outcome that that would produce. If a vote takes place when expected, we shall have only a little over two hours to debate the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Elections Bill and we shall have one hour to debate the Election Publications Bill.
The first debate is the most serious and we shall have only two minutes to debate each amendment, and that assumes that we have no votes. The guillotine, as imposed out of the blue in an unnecessary and counterproductive fashion, is wrong in principle, but I hope that even the Government can see that it is wholly inadequate in practice. I ask the Minister to make a concession on the issue of time. I hope very much that we can have a comparatively short debate on this motion, so that we can use the maximum amount of time on real scrutiny of the Bills.
We have been jammed into an uncomfortable and wholly unsatisfactory and unnecessary position. The solution lies with Ministers, and we look very much to them to provide us with that solution.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I wish to speak about the Elections Bill, which is particularly significant for Northern Ireland. It is important that procedures that limit the time that the House has to consider any Bill be used sparingly; but when the Bill affects the constitutional rights of electors and may influence their future, such a procedure must be used even more sparingly.
The greater part of the Elections Bill is taken up with matters relating to Northern Ireland. Because of the effects of foot and mouth, it is understandable that there may be a great deal of agreement about the Bill's contents among the parties that are largely concerned with the United Kingdom mainland, but that consideration does not affect Northern Ireland. At present, we are free from foot and mouth, so there is absolutely no objection to local government elections taking place in Northern Ireland in accordance with extant legislation. They could be held on 16 May, with a general election to follow once a date is determined.
We should have a full debate on aspects of the Bill that pertain to Northern Ireland. It should not be time limited. There is a grave suspicion that those provisions are being included for no reason whatsoever. They do not appear to be connected with the general election or foot and mouth. It has been common knowledge for some time that, to further their policies and objectives in relation to the peace process or the Belfast agreement, the Government have made moves to ensure that the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party should gain an advantage by a change in electoral arrangements. It was at first suggested that the local government elections in Northern Ireland should be postponed from 16 May 2001 to an indefinite future date, while local government was possibly reorganised. The agreement of the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP could not be obtained for that.
Long before the issue of foot and mouth arose in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, there were rumours in political circles in Northern Ireland that local government elections and the general election would be held on the same day. Fundamental constitutional issues are at stake and should be debated at length, including whether the principles of democracy and electors' rights are best served by having elections which use two systems on the same day. In Northern Ireland, voters will be expected to follow the general election procedure of first past the post, which allows them simply to put an X against the name of the single candidate for whom they want to vote, and the local government election procedure, which is based on proportional representation. Under that system, the voter marks his preference for one, two, three, four, five, six or more candidates on a list. It is not a matter of applying the same electoral principles as obtain for the election on the mainland, which will always use the first past the post system.
The capacity for engendering confusion, difficulty, misunderstanding and protests about the validity of votes is protean in Northern Ireland. Indeed, some of the

proposals plainly provide for the boxes that contain the votes to be opened at the discretion of the returning officer, without the scrutiny of party representatives, to allow general election votes to be separated like the wheat and the tares from the votes cast in the local government elections. By making provisions that recognise the substantial mistakes that will be made and the mix-ups and confusion that will occur, on which the returning officer will have to decide, the Bill acknowledges my concern, which I hope I have put with some force. It is absolutely ludicrous, in purely electoral terms, to have two elections on the same day for two different sets of candidates that operate under two fundamentally different voting procedures.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland dissents from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying—I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening. The schedule to the Electrons Bill states:
Nothing in these rules or the local elections rules requires the counting agents to be given facilities for overseeing the proceedings mentioned".
What are those proceedings? Are they that the boxes should be opened, every vote be taken out, the coloured votes separated into one pile and the white votes into another, all with no public scrutiny? Are those votes then to be wrapped up in a parcel and sent out with an outrider—we realise that local government people have employed outriders to go on motorbike to deliver parcels of votes to other places—without scrutiny? The Under-Secretary needs to face up to that.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the debate.

Mr. McCartney: I return to my general theme. For reasons that have nothing to do with the emergency in the United Kingdom at large, which has made it necessary for us to consider both Bills, the Government have decided to incorporate in one of them provisions that are not required by any exigency in Northern Ireland, and to import a system of voting that guarantees confusion. Indeed, the Bill recognises and provides for the sorting out of anticipated difficulty.
The Government are imposing a guillotine on a Bill that provides for the exercise of fundamental democratic and constitutional rights that any citizen may enjoy—the right to cast his vote in circumstances in which there is no confusion about the validity of its casting, in which there is no mix-up with any other election, and in which, in confidence and certainty, he can cast a vote for those by whom he wishes to be represented in local government or the House. It seems to me—and, I hope, the House—that the essential falseness and weakness of the proposed legislation, so far as it bears on that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland, is that it incorporates measures that are in no way induced, caused or generated by the fundamental emergency that has led to the introduction of both Bills. I hope and trust that, even at this late stage, Ministers will consider that, in relation to Northern Ireland, that is such a fundamental, democratic and constitutional issue as to require—nay, demand—a full and comprehensive debate.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 1(1), after "on Second Reading," to leave out
in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading".
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) will forgive me if I do not respond directly to what he said or follow on directly from his arguments. I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I say that he raised issues that disturb people like me, who are not familiar with the background in Northern Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman made points that need to be properly addressed by Ministers and which add weight to the general unease that many of us feel about the timetable motion.
My purpose in speaking is, first, to express my opposition to, and deep anxiety about, the timetable motion, and secondly, to speak to the manuscript amendment which Mr. Speaker kindly selected. My manuscript amendment is confined to the Elections Bill, not the Election Publications Bill, and would enable the House to consider all stages of the Elections Bill over two days, rather than one day. We should have Second Reading today, ending at 10 pm, and we should deal with the Committee, Report and Third Reading tomorrow, ending at a fairly late hour—say, 12 midnight. In any event, we should debate the Elections Bill over a two-day period.
The argument that we have heard from all parts of the House is that there is a need for emergency legislation. I make two observations about that. First, the fact that we may need legislation rapidly does not mean that we should pass it without proper scrutiny. Secondly, the phrase "emergency legislation" is probably not properly descriptive of what we are discussing. We are speaking of rapid legislation.

Mr. Forth: Panic legislation.

Mr. Hogg: I am speaking of rapid legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I approach the matter from different points of view. My right hon. Friend is addressing the motives of those on the Government Front Bench when he uses the phrase "panic legislation". My argument is that the legislation must be passed rapidly. We do not disagree, but I do not want to use the phrase that my right hon. Friend used.
The guillotine motion relates to two Bills. I propose to concentrate exclusively on the Elections Bill, save to say in respect of the Election Publications Bill that the fact that we shall have to consider that Bill under a timetable motion, or at all, arises because the principal legislation amended by the Election Publications Bill was itself not properly discussed. That ought to make us very chary of using the mechanism set out in the timetable motion.
I repeat the point that I made to the Home Secretary. I am a serious believer in the procedure whereby a Standing Committee can take evidence. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about a Cabinet Minister deciding as a matter of principle that all legislation introduced by that Department should be the subject of evidence taking, either through a Select Committee, which was the procedure adopted in the context of the Adoption

and Children Bill, or, as I would suggest—although I do not want to be dogmatic—by the Special Standing Committee procedure, which has been in place for yonks but is rarely used. It should be.
I turn to the Elections Bill and the timetable motion. We need to understand what we are discussing. As I understand the effect of the timetable motion, I think that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) misspoke himself, if he will forgive my saying so. We must finish the Second Reading and Committee stage by 9 pm. In other words, we have about four hours to go through a process which, in the ordinary course of events, would take very many hours.
That is pretty surprising, and it is not implausible to say that there is a strong presumption that it is thoroughly undesirable, too. It is all the more undesirable when one bears in mind that the Elections Bill was published only yesterday. I did not see it at all until 3.45 pm, and my constituents will not have seen it even now.
As I understand it from the Prime Minister's official spokesman, Mr. Campbell, who often seems to be in the dominant position in No. 10, until very recently, probably Monday, no work was being done on the Bill. That, by definition, means—if he was telling the truth, and I am prepared to give him credit for doing so—that no work was done, and there was no pre-drafting consultation. If he was telling the truth—let us assume that he was—it must necessarily follow that there was a lack of consultation. How could pre-drafting consultation have occurred if no work had been done? Thus the Elections Bill was published yesterday and was not the subject of consultation, but we are being asked to bang it through by 10 o'clock. That strikes me as a pretty remarkable state of affairs.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that, when the Government decided the adequacy of the motion, they may have been influenced by the expectation—or even intention—that no Labour Member would seek to speak during this three-hour debate? Only one of their Back Benchers—the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—has eventually had the courtesy even to attend.

Mr. Hogg: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right, to the extent that the Government Whips are trying to keep their Benches clear. He has, however, done a slight injustice to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who expressed earlier her grave anxiety about procedure such as that with which the motion deals. The House will know that the hon. Lady is deservedly of high reputation and is jealous of the reputation of the House. Her views carry weight, and it was clear that she did not like the process that we are considering. I should point out that I now see another Labour Member in the Chamber, although I do not immediately recognise him.
Having made it clear that we are engaged in a thoroughly undesirable exercise, I should like to speak in more detail. I observed that 10 groups of amendments appeared in the preliminary selection. As I have taken advice, I know that more amendments are being added to those groups, probably even as I speak. More amendments will appear on Second Reading, and perhaps in Committee. There is an ever-expanding number of


amendments, many of which are substantive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) tabled important amendments relating to the process for selecting a date. I tabled an amendment suggesting that the local authority elections should be delayed until the end of this year. Amendments dealing with a range of procedural matters have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by Unionist Members. I also thought that the hon. and learned Member for North Down made points of particular importance.
The plain truth is, however, that we shall consider none of those amendments. By 9 o'clock, we will barely have finished even a partial Second Reading, let alone a detailed discussion. Important amendments that Mr. Speaker has selected for consideration in relation to a Bill of constitutional importance will remain untouched. We cannot take representations or consult outside interests on the technicalities. Furthermore, my constituents cannot express a view through me to the House. I am bound to say that that is not only remarkable, but scandalous. If the legislation were absolutely essential, then all right, we could accept the need for urgency, but it is not absolutely essential.
I have provided a solution, albeit a partial one: a two-day debate. That time scale would enable us to debate Second Reading until the ordinary time—10 o'clock tonight—and take time for reflection. Perhaps the e-mail system, faxes and so on would then communicate representations of one sort or another. A more informed debate would then follow tomorrow. What on earth is wrong with that? God knows that it would be a truncated debate, but it would be a lot better than what we are now talking about.
It is nice to see the Home Secretary back in his place. He has his correspondence, so no doubt he will be signing away and looking through all the documents from the last general election which he has fished out of his attic. I shall certainly give way to him, although he found it difficult to give way to me. I note that he does not want me to give way to him. So be it; I will not do so for the moment. In any event, I expect a proper response from a Minister at the close of this debate, explaining why we cannot consider the Elections Bill over two days, and I look forward to that. If the House adopts the solution that I have recommended—a two-day debate—that will leave adequate time in this place and the other place to finish consideration of the Bill in time to allow local elections to take place on 7 June, if that is what is resolved.
I move now from the particular to the general, and I want to make five points. Most importantly, the House does not need to be treated in the way we are tonight being treated. If the Government had heeded the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), an enabling Bill would have been introduced some two or three weeks ago, and the deferment of the local elections would have been triggered by a statutory instrument provided for in that legislation. If the Government had adopted my right hon. Friend's wise suggestion, we would not have been in the jam that they tell us we are in today. The truth is that the Prime Minister dithered, talked to his political advisers, considered what was in his party's interests and made a rapid, urgent and unmeritorious decision.
Assuming that the Government could not have been persuaded to do what was so manifestly sensible and enact an enabling Bill, they could at least have published a draft Bill some two or three weeks ago, so that interested parties could have considered it and expressed their opinions and it could have been improved if necessary. The Government chose not to do that either.
I am not particularly in favour of late nights, but God knows I have been in this place long enough: some would say too long—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was the reaction that I expected from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst but not from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. We are perfectly capable of sitting late when necessary, and if we must, we should. We have done so on many occasions during this Parliament, albeit when it has suited the Government.
I remember, for example, the proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill, fathered by the Home Secretary. It may have been a great Bill, but I thought it was lousy. I have a lot to say about it, but I said it at 11, 12 and 1 o'clock, which was a perfectly sensible time to say it. We could sit late if we really wanted to. The fact that we are not doing so raises serious questions about the propriety of what we are doing.
I have also tabled another manuscript amendment. It has not been selected, but I can make my point none the less. The Bill—I refer to the Elections Bill, not the Election Publications Bill—refers to England, Wales and Northern Ireland; it does not refer to Scotland, so why should Members who represent Scottish constituencies vote on the Bill? It is no conceivable business of theirs. It is the business of Northern Ireland Members and Welsh Members, although I do not see one here, and it is certainly our business.

Mr. Straw: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a similar view, even privately, when the Bill to establish a poll tax in Scotland alone came before the House? Did he say that the Bill should be voted on only by Scottish Members?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the essential consequences of devolution. Before devolution, ours was a unitary state, whereas since devolution, affairs in Scotland have been explicitly and exclusively the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I shall not proceed with this line of argument, Madam Speaker. Even the Home Secretary will understand the folly of his intervention.
My amendment to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on the Bill has not been accepted. However, it is within the Home Secretary's competence to advise those of his colleagues who come from Scottish constituencies that it would not be inappropriate for them to vote, and I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Bercow: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right in supposing that the reason why the Government do not want to sit late is that most Ministers and Labour Members cannot wait to scurry home to consume their Ovaltine and tuck themselves up as early as possible. Does he acknowledge that one of the main bases of Government objection to his tabled amendment is that if debate took place over two days, and so continued


throughout tomorrow, it would gravely affront the Minister for the Cabinet Office and her colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, who want to push through that wretched constitutional monstrosity called the Regulatory Reform Bill?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend may well be right, but I have never consulted the interests of the Minister for the Cabinet Office—and she has never consulted mine either. We are at least ad idem on that.
There is a legitimate discussion about whether local government elections should be held on 7 June or at some other date. I believe that they should be held at a later date: probably in the middle or latter part of October, by which time foot and mouth will certainly be under control. It is doubtful that the disease will be under control by June. It is absolutely clear that if—with the exception of Northern Ireland—local government elections are to be deferred because of foot and mouth, we should be able to receive representations from our constituents and other interested groups before fixing on the date of 7 June.
The guillotine and the procedure that we are adopting prevent us from hearing the technical and other arguments about an appropriate date. I may be right or wrong in saying that the appropriate date is October, not June, but I would feel much happier if the House had had proper time to receive representations from constituents who are most affected by these matters.
I am against the motion, and if it is pushed to a Division I shall vote against it. In any event, I am strongly in favour of my amendment, which would enable the House to consider the Elections Bill over two days. If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if I am so enabled, I shall call a Division on that amendment.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I support the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his amendment. I want to confine my remarks to the implications of having only one hour in which to discuss the Election Publications Bill. At least the Elections Bill will be discussed in the other place. I hope that the other place will be more intent on scrutinising it than it was on scrutinising the Election Publications Bill.
The Home Secretary used that fact against us. He said that the other place spent only 23 minutes discussing the Election Publications Bill. I doubt very much that the other place would have spent only 23 minutes discussing the Bill had it known that the House of Commons would be allowed only one hour in which to discuss all its stages. That arrangement is without precedent: it is constitutionally outrageous, and it shows that we have an increasingly tyrannical Government.
The fact that the Home Secretary had to use a wholly specious precedent in a lame attempt to prop up his case reveals how desperate he is. He cited the precedent—as he described it—of the 1989 Gaming (Amendment) Bill. Because I do not take everything that the Home Secretary says at face value, I then slipped out of the Chamber and went to the Library to look up the history of that Bill. In fact it is the Gaming (Amendment) Act 1990, which was introduced in the House of Lords as a private Member's Bill in 1990.
The Bill was debated in the House of Lords, where its Second Reading took place on 15 February. It was introduced by Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The Committee stage took place in the House of Lords on 1 March; there was a formal Report stage on 22 March, and Third Reading took place on 2 April in the House of Lords. The Bill then came to the House of Commons, where it was given a formal Second Reading on 8 June. It is true that it was not debated; there was a vote, and it was allowed a Second Reading. Significantly, however, there was then time for Members of the House of Commons to decide whether they wanted to table amendments, because the Bill was considered again on 6 July. As no amendments had been tabled and there was no discontent with the Bill, it passed into law. That is a very different proposition from what we are discussing now.
In a throwaway line, the Home Secretary—again, perhaps badly briefed—said he assumed that the Gaming (Amendment) Act must have been of much greater concern to many more people than the Election Publications Bill. The Gaming (Amendment) Act, however, refers only to the narrow issue of applications for casino licences. I submit that many more people are interested in the imprints of election literature than are interested in that subject.

Mr. Straw: I too will go to the Library, but I have been informed that the 1990 Gaming (Amendment) Bill was different from the 1989 Bill.

Mr. Chope: Indeed, because the 1989 Bill does not exist. Taking what the Home Secretary had said at face value, I asked the Librarian to look up the 1989 Bill. When he could not find it, I said "I am sure it must be there, because the Home Secretary has said it is there." We looked at the books and there was nothing, so we then thought that the date must be wrong—and indeed the date is 1990. I do not know what disciplinary action the Home Secretary wishes to take against those who advised him. Perhaps he will take full responsibility: in fact, I am sure that he will.
There is a serious point here. If we have only an hour in which to debate the Bill from beginning to end, how will we have a chance to conduct research and investigate the accuracy of arguments deployed by the Government in support of their legislation—and how will those outside have a chance to discuss the issues and verify what Ministers say?
I am sure that the Home Secretary spoke in good faith, but he is man enough to admit that he made a fundamental error in referring to the 1989 Gaming (Amendment) Bill. I hope that it will not be used again as a specious precedent for even more draconian curtailments of debate.
In any event, the Election Publications Bill is unusual because clause 2 is effectively a Henry VIII clause giving the Home Secretary absolute power to amend primary legislation in the form of section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. [Interruption.]

Mr. Bercow: It is important that the sedentary chunterings of the Home Secretary should be placed


firmly on the record. Did I hear the Home Secretary correctly when he said a moment ago that the Bill was "scarcely draconian"?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please address the Chair?

Mr. Bercow: I apologise profusely. There was no intentional discourtesy. Did my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) hear, as I did, the Home Secretary say that the measure was "scarcely draconian"? If he did—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is signalling that he heard it—can he tell me what exactly the Home Secretary would regard as draconian?

Mr. Chope: Once we have got to the stage of saying that we can deal with Government legislation in the House by forcing it through within one hour, without any chance to debate it further, that is draconian.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for raising the matter. He is right: I did say that the Bill was scarcely draconian. I was also muttering that Draco was the chief magistrate in Athens in the 7th century BC. The reason why he is remembered is because he introduced capital punishment for virtually every criminal offence.

Mr. Forth: An excellent man.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says that Draco was an excellent man. That is not a tradition that I have sought to follow in any particular whatever. Nor do I believe that one can in any sense describe the Bill, which is about election publications, as within the compass of what Draco had in mind when he gave his name to an immortal adjective.

Mr. Chope: The Home Secretary is desperately trying to argue the point. He says that the Bill is scarcely draconian. What he is saying is that it is not very draconian—not by his standards. We will see what sort of punishment regime is in operation when some of his hon. Friends seek to try to divide the House or vote against the legislation, particularly the timetable motion. We will see whether he wishes to impose the equivalent of capital punishment on their parliamentary careers. I suspect that that is exactly what he and his friends have in mind.
The Bill, the debate on which is to be limited to one hour, is unusual not just because it has a Henry VIII clause, but because it seeks to keep on the statute book two sets of laws. The helpful note produced by the Library says:
The Election Publications Bill [HL] is fairly unusual in that it ensures that both the pre-16 February and the post-16 February provisions of s110 are in effect in force at the same time. It is also unusual because it does not result from a court case or new legal advice where the interpretation of the law has been brought into question, but simply by the inability of certain political parties"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now debating the content of the Bill, rather than the motion that is before us.

Mr. Chope: I am seeking not to debate the content of the Bill, but to explain why we should have the chance to

debate the content of the Bill. It is an unusual Bill. It is without precedent and deserves proper scrutiny. If I had been attempting at this stage to read the whole of the Election Publications Bill briefing from the Library, obviously, I would be out of order. All I am saying is that the Bill, on which the Government are trying to curtail debate, is very unusual. We should have proper scrutiny.
I am very worried by the Home Secretary's remark that it would not have been necessary to curtail debate on the Election Publications Bill if it had not been made clear that there was some opposition to it among Conservative Members. I think that he meant that someone—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—had had the temerity to table an amendment.
The Bill was on the Order Paper for debate on Monday, and there was ample time to scrutinise it then. There is no reason to suspect that the Chair would not have allowed a closure motion at a reasonable time if it seemed that the debate was being prolonged unnecessarily. I came to the House on Monday prepared to debate the substance of the Bill, and now we will have only a very short time to raise matters of concern.
It is wholly unnecessary to treat us in this way. The Home Secretary seems to take the view that the whole purpose of Parliament is for Front Benchers to come to agreements and push everyone else out of the equation. What future role do Back Benchers have if debate is so curtailed that there is time only for speeches from the Front Benches before the guillotine falls? We are getting to that stage, and it is very serious indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has been assiduous in ensuring that private Members' legislation is properly scrutinised. If one were to apply to such legislation the precedent that the Government are now setting, we might have six or 10 one-hour Second Reading debates on a Friday. The Government might find that rather uncomfortable, because it could give Back Benchers more power to introduce legislation. Fridays might then become rather more burdensome for them.
If it is reasonable for a Second Reading debate on a Bill covering quite a narrow issue to run from 9.30 to 2.30 on a Friday, why is it necessary to restrict to one hour the debate on a significant Bill that is retrospective, contains a Henry VIII clause and sets the intriguing precedent of putting two contradictory pieces of legislation on the statute book at the same time? This is appalling, and I strongly oppose it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland Members and our constituents are in a very difficult position. The Elections Bill has sprung from the womb of the tragedy that has afflicted the larger part of the United Kingdom—the foot and mouth plague—but we do not have that plague in Northern Ireland. The plague can be isolated, and the European Community has declared Northern Ireland plague-free, except for one local government area.
The Bill has been introduced to postpone elections because of foot and mouth, but there is no ground for that whatever in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland are enraged by the fact that the Bill is almost wholly concerned with us: there are a couple of lines on England and Wales, then on page 2 we find the clause


heading "Postponement of local elections in Northern Ireland". Schedule 1, on page five, also deals with Northern Ireland. Almost the whole Bill deals with Northern Ireland.
For some reason or other, local government elections that could have been held on 16 May will not be held on that date but postponed to a date to be chosen on which both elections can be held. If we in Northern Ireland had ever heard of such a proposal, perhaps we would have treated this Bill with more respect. There has been a large argument in Northern Ireland about when local elections should be held.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time motion?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am making the point that I object to the guillotine because it is part of a solution to a situation that did not need to arise. It is legitimate for me to make that very special point, as my colleague the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) did in his speech. That is what I am seeking to do.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who is now in control of the Treasury Bench—knows the discussions that he has had in past months on local government elections. Those discussions have had nothing whatsoever to do with the foot and mouth plague. Two parties in Northern Ireland—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—want something to be done about those local government elections. One party—the First Minister—wanted the elections to be postponed for a long time, perhaps one or two years. It did not suit him to consult the people because the people would have rejected what he said. He therefore decided, "Let us postpone them. They are going to be unpleasant for me."
The First Minister's Deputy wanted something to be done about the elections, but he did not want to be so drastic. As the two parties could not agree, they could not present an agreement to the Government. However, they decided to propose that both elections should be held on the same day, as they felt that that would be a great advantage to them. Therefore, the House is being asked to pass this Bill not because of foot and mouth disease—according to Europe, which seems to be the supreme potentate in these matters, there is no foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland—but because the Government have decided that we shall go with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who feel that it would be good to delay the elections.
Hon. Members will notice, however, that not one Ulster Unionist Member is in the Chamber. Ulster Unionist Members do not want what their leader wants; they do not want it at all. Therefore, they have not attended the debate, although they may attend for debate on Second Reading, if we have time for that.
The Minister is smiling graciously because he knows all of that very well. He and my party had long meetings on the matter. I am holding a very long letter on the matter that I sent to the Prime Minister. I am glad that, yesterday, I mentioned in the House that I had not received a reply to it from the Prime Minister because, this morning, I received a hand-delivered reply from him. I will bear that in mind in future when he does not reply to my letters.
No decent democrat could agree with some of the Bill's provisions. Even the Alliance party is opposed to the Bill. Although it is one of the pro-agreement parties, it cannot stomach the Bill, which strikes at—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the Bill's content, but the allocation of time for considering it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Should we not have time to discuss a matter that cuts across basic democracy? I happen to believe in free elections. I happen to believe that, when the boxes are opened, they should be scrutinised by the candidates and by the scrutineers. I lost my first election because an election box went missing. I would have been elected had the box been found. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) lost the election in the Mid-Ulster constituency because of fraud. Everyone admitted that there was fraud in that election, even members of the Social Democratic and Labour party.
The Bill under consideration provides a way for fraud to be carried out. Interestingly enough, it used to be that the electoral officer had to perform certain duties when votes were counted. The Bill does not require him to do anything. The word used is "may", rather than "shall". He cannot be forced to do anything. That cuts at the heart of democracy.
What is more, scrutineers and candidates will be prevented from seeing the boxes opened for the first time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the programme motion will allow insufficient time to represent the interests of the thousands of people in Ulster who vote for him and his party?

Rev. Ian Paisley: There will be no time for that. Once debate on this motion is complete, we will move on to the next motion. I have been told that perhaps one person from my party will be able to make a short speech, and then it will be all over. We have gone through the Bill and have tabled amendments to it. I do not want to raise this matter continually, but my party has been treated shamefully in not being told about the Bill. We have received an apology for that.
When we were eventually told about the Bill, we were given a draft version. I went to the Vote Office and asked for all the relevant Acts, but the office could not supply them, so I was not able to give full consideration to all the papers mentioned in the Bill. I had to wait until late last night before I got the necessary papers.
How could I have had time to look at all the papers? I worked hard on the matter, and discovered that one of the papers—Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001—could not be found because it does not exist. The Vote Office wrote to me, stating:
The N. I. Office have informed us that there is no such act as the Elections (N.I.) Act 2001.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I thank the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for giving way. His normal eagle-eyed scrutiny has revealed a drafting mistake in the Bill. If he looks at the amendments selected for debate, he will note that the Government have


[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland] tabled an amendment to put the matter right. We spotted the error as well, but of course the resources available to us are far greater than those available to him.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister is not revealing all the facts. He spotted the problem because he received a letter from the Vote Office. However, the argument remains the same.
I represent, both here and in Europe, more people in Northern Ireland than are represented by any other hon. Member. My party represents a majority of the Unionist electorate. It is right for me to tell the House that I must oppose the guillotine. We cannot reasonably discuss a matter when there is no time to consider it. The relevant parliamentary offices lack the necessary information, and the Minister is forced to reveal that a drastic mistake had been made.
There have been two drastic mistakes. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, said yesterday in the House, Northern Ireland representatives have been unable to get hold of the papers in time. When we finally got them, a paper that was not relevant held up the supply of the other papers.
The people of Northern Ireland cannot be expected to ask us to ram this measure through, because it is not needed. We could go ahead and have our elections on 16 May. It is a terrible thing when politicians are afraid of an election result. What is more, the Bill opens the way for cheating and fraud on the part of every criminal in the country. All they have to do is run down one motorbike rider carrying a bundle of votes from one station to the other. If those votes are lost, the whole election has to be declared null and void. The Minister knows that there are people in Northern Ireland who would do that gladly. If the big bomb in Londonderry yesterday had exploded it would have blown up many police officers, so we know that that is a reality.
How could the Government expect me to say, "Go ahead, rush it through."? I must make my protest. I have found it very difficult to do so. I was held up yesterday because I was told that I was out of order. I know that there will be no time to speak on Second Reading today, so I am making my point strongly now.
There is no need for the Bill. Northern Ireland does not have foot and mouth disease, according to the European Union, which is the supreme potentate. It examines the innards of the animals and declare whether they are clean or unclean. It has taken the place of the Aaronic priesthood. As Europe has declared Northern Ireland clean, we should be able to hold the local government elections on the proper day without any change.

Mr. Eric Forth: We must surely have reached the depths of parliamentary despair—the slough of parliamentary despond—in the point to which the Government have brought us today. I follow in the spirit of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and strongly support his amendment.
We must ask ourselves why we, as the House of Commons and a Parliament, are in this intolerable position. The reason is that we are caught between the

vacillation of the Prime Minister and the arbitrary date of the Easter recess, which has been decided, essentially, by the Government. The Prime Minister is the Government—no other part of the Government appears to function in any sense—and even he cannot make up his mind. The one thing that the Government have decided on, to which the House has agreed, is the date of the Easter recess.
The Government have said that these two rather grubby Bills must be passed immediately, with no effective scrutiny or consideration. Why? Because of the indecision of the Government, who, nevertheless, have a mysterious ability to decide positively about the date of the Easter recess. We cannot therefore have the proper time normally available for considering a Bill of this kind.
The Home Secretary tried to draw an analogy with the deliberations in another place. I have always thought it proper and good for the two Houses of Parliament to take a completely different view of the way in which they deal with legislation. Therefore, the fact that the members of another place saw fit to allow one of the Bills to go through quickly, without much debate and without amendment, is neither here nor there. It is for this House to decide how it will deal with matters. The fact that the Election Publications Bill was originally on Monday's Order Paper and that the Chairman of Ways and Means kindly accepted and selected my amendment to the Bill—since when another amendment has been tabled and selected—suggests that this House was looking at the Bill in a very different way from the other place. For the Home Secretary to come along and say, "The Lords let it go through very quickly and therefore so should the Commons" is a distressing example of a misunderstanding by the right hon. Gentleman of the way in which Parliament works. I should have thought that he was on top of these things, but it seems that he has slipped of late. He now apparently says that if something happens in another place, it should happen here. I refute that argument.
The Home Secretary tried to suggest that there was a precedent. I asked whether there was a precedent for a Government, under a guillotine, seeking to restrict all stages of a public Bill to one hour. He came up with a precedent that was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) demonstrated, a spurious and unlike example. In other words, there is no precedent. Yet again the Government are breaking new parliamentary ground by having the gall and arrogance to say that the law of the land should be made after one hour's consideration in total by the House of Commons. That is the prospect which we face tonight, and it is surely unacceptable.
Let us take a different approach, again following the spirit of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Why could we not sit later tonight? Presumably, it is because the babes on the Labour Benches do not want to be here too late. They do not feel that it is right to be detained at a late hour to do something as trivial as legislating, scrutinising or holding the Government to account. The delicate babes on the Government Benches feel that it is inappropriate to be delayed overlong in the House of Commons. Surely if it is a matter of emergency—which I doubt—and a matter of panic, which it certainly is for


the Government, they could say to their babes, "Can't you just stay a bit late for one night to allow us to consider the matter?"

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is surely aware that that is not the language that we expect to be used in the Chamber in reference to hon. Members.

Mr. Forth: I am sorry if I have offended the delicacy of Labour Members. I shall try to remember that I should address them as honourable but largely absent Members. That perhaps would be a more accurate description of them. I shall try to remember to use it in future.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend expresses himself in his customarily restrained and understated fashion with which the House is familiar. While I do not in any way dissent from the important point that he has made in his emollient style, may I ask whether he agrees that another reason that the Government do not want substantial debate on this matter any more than on any other is that they know that most of the people who would contribute to the debate from the Back Benches, including their own, would be potent speakers largely critical of the Government? Surely my right hon. Friend accepts that what the Government want is for their Back Benchers to be craven lickspittles of the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Forth: The Government may already have achieved that objective early in this Parliament. The point is whether those who are still keen on our role of scrutinising and attempting to hold to account should be given a proper opportunity so to do.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has selected a large number of amendments and a new clause which are deemed to be suitable and appropriate for debate and consideration by the House. They cover some important matters, and they have been tabled by members of more than one political party. As Northern Ireland Members have said, the amendments bear substantially on matters that are the proper concern of Northern Ireland.
So we have on the one hand the Government's self-imposed need or desire to deal with the matter in the most peremptory and panicky fashion and on the other the acknowledgement by the Chairman of Ways and Means that legitimate amendments have been tabled, even to the extent that the manuscript amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has been selected. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there may be further amendments to come. Against that background, the Government say that the amount of time available to the House is to be arbitrarily and unnecessarily restricted to 10 o'clock this evening, in the case of the Elections Bill. That has been done for no given reason. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the matter must be dealt with by 10 o'clock this day and why it must be dealt with on this day in any case.
The Elections Bill will have to go to another place. One asks whether the normal period will be allowed to elapse between the end of consideration by the House of Commons and when the other place is asked to pick it up. I should have thought that that was an important consideration. As far as I know, the House of Lords will sit tomorrow. It could sit on Friday, if it is not already

due to do so. It will almost certainly sit on Monday and Tuesday. There is ample scope for the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to be accommodated, or even to go further and allow more time for consideration. No reason has been given in the case of the Elections Bill, never mind an adequate or acceptable one, for the deadline of 10 o'clock this evening, or for allowing only one day's consideration of a Bill to which a large number of amendments and new clauses have already been selected.
When it comes to the Election Publications Bill, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch spoke a moment ago, and to which I am happy to say that my own modest amendment has been selected, the waters get murkier. It is a grubby little Bill introduced with an even grubbier all-party consensus to conceal some all-party cock-ups. What worse motivation could there be for changing the law of the land? I shall hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and expose the Bill for what it truly is. This is not the time or the place to do so.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If time is so crucial, why are we wasting three hours in debating the programme motion?

Mr. Forth: What a typical and representative view from a Government Member. They think that the debate is a waste of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. A Government Member who has drifted into the Chamber opines that the debate is all basically a waste of time. Nothing could sum up better the attitude of—I was going to say new Labour, but I will not insult the hon. Gentleman by using that label. I do not think that he would welcome it. A senior member of the Labour party and a generally respected Member of the House gives us his view that the debate is a waste of time. I am sure that if you shared that view, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would have put a stop to it long ago. This is an important debate, and one that I can well see that the Government want to shut down or ideally avoid altogether.
I will not say more on the Election Publications Bill at this stage, and I may not be able to say much later because the Government have allowed only one hour to change the law of the land—one hour in total for the House of Commons to consider a matter of widespread interest. Were I to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would refer briefly to the reasons given for the Bill in its brief passage through another place. They reveal some interesting aspects of it, but this is not the occasion on which to do any such thing. Suffice it to say that there are several reasons why the House should reject the motion, not least that one hour in total for consideration of a Bill is utterly unacceptable and outrageous. It is without precedent because the Home Secretary and all the might of his Department were unable to produce a precedent.
Unless I am contradicted by the Minister, this is new ground. This is something that has not happened before. Law is being made by a Government imposing themselves on the House of Commons and saying that all stages of a Bill must be completed in one hour. Let us understand what that means. Let us say—I was going to say 659 Members of Parliament, but I will exclude the


payroll—instead, let us say that more than 500 Members of Parliament may wish to speak. They will be given a total of one hour—

Mr. Don Foster: Or less.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman reminds me that Divisions could reduce that time. I am being generous to the Government. I said that it is just possible that there will be as much as one hour for debate, but, of course, it could be 45 minutes or even less.

Mr. Pike: It could be more.

Mr. Forth: It certainly could be, if the hon. Gentleman's dearest wish were granted and we completed consideration of the Elections Bill before 10 o'clock this evening. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman suggests that we get through 50 amendments before 10 o'clock, so that we can get on to the Election Publications Bill earlier than that.

Mr. Pike: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but we could have started debate on the Elections Bill at 3.40 pm, so we could have had much more time on it.

Mr. Forth: Of course. If we debated nothing at all in the House, we could all go home immediately. That is the logic of the position increasingly taken by Labour Members.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: In support of my right hon. Friend's argument, has he considered the fact that, earlier, the Home Secretary advised the House that it might be a good idea if, on certain matters, we followed the other place? Has my right hon. Friend considered that Her Majesty's Government apparently anticipate that the other place will consider the Elections Bill for two days—continuing into next week?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. However, we do not know it officially—it is not public knowledge. In any case, I do not think that should alter our attitude to our consideration of the Bill. The fact that Members in another place saw fit to deal with the Election Publications Bill in a few minutes is a matter for them—properly. However, I see it differently in this place. My hon. Friend's helpful advice does not alter by one iota my view of the motion or of the Bills.

Mr. Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman might reflect further on the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Although Members in another place have longer to discuss the Bill, they will not be allowed to discuss matters relating to its financial consequences. They have thus been given a significantly longer time to deal with far less.

Mr. Forth: That is so. What makes it all worse is that, according to the section of the motion headed "Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill", the Government suggest that, if their lordships are wise enough to make amendments to the Bill, we shall then be given one hour to consider those amendments

when the Bill comes back to this place. I hope that amendments will be made in the other place, because we certainly shall not have time to amend the Bill, based on the admirable selection made by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I hope that their lordships scrutinise the measure carefully and amend it—I doubt that we shall have the opportunity to do so. It will then be interesting to see what we do during the one hour that the Government are allocating for our consideration of the Lords amendments that I hope will be made. The viciousness of the motion is compounded the further one looks ahead to future proceedings.
The combination of the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends and my own modest contribution should surely be enough to persuade the House to reject the motion. I hope that we shall accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, although I do not think that it goes far enough. However, it certainly goes in the right direction, so I am prepared to support it. I hope, too, that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), will at least attempt to answer some of the many questions that have been put. Before we decide how we will vote, he will have one last chance to persuade us—as his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary failed to do—that the motion is appropriate, acceptable and proper.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Forth: I am about to conclude, but I will give way to my hon. Friend once more.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's generosity of spirit invariably gets the better of him—as Members on both sides are well aware. I invite him to consider this rather simple, prosaic but, I hope, valid point: does he not think that it is significant that during this afternoon's debate, one lacuna in the Bill has already been identified and that the Home Secretary has made a mess of matters in respect of gaming legislation? As we have found two Government errors in the space of two and a half hours, is it not reasonable to anticipate that the danger of the procedure recommended by the Government is that several further errors will be discovered—but only when it is too late?

Mr. Forth: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says; it would certainly be too late in this place, if the House passes the motion—as I fear we must anticipate. The Government will wheel in the terracotta army; they will go through the Lobby—I was going to say "like sheep", but that might be rather an unfortunate description at present—and, no doubt, the motion will be passed. However, I can hold out this hope to my hon. Friend: the more errors, lacunae and cock-ups that are identified in the Bill at present—we have already had a hint of some and, no doubt, more will emerge during the next few hours—the greater will be the incentive for another place to look at length and in depth at the matter, in order to carry out the job that we have been denied the opportunity to do. That is my fervent hope.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am shocked by the motion. The proposed legislation is extremely complicated. My reading of the selection made by the Chairman of Ways and Means is that 50 amendments will be discussed during different stages in the passage of the Bill. It will be completely impossible for the House to give those amendments proper consideration. How can we think otherwise than that politics is in disrepute if the House is treated in that manner?
In this week's edition of The House magazine, I read the thoughts of some Members who will be leaving the House at the next general election and was struck by the fact that all of them said that the House had changed—and changed for the worse—and that Parliament was being treated with contempt. Yesterday, I held a conversation in the Corridor with a Cabinet Minister, who shall be nameless. I said, "I was pleased to see you sitting in the Chamber for a few minutes earlier, because it's good to see Cabinet Ministers supporting their junior Ministers—if only briefly—when legislation is going through the House, but you weren't there for very long". To which the Cabinet Minister replied, "I can't sit in there, we have a country to run".
Surely, the place for elected Members of Parliament and Ministers is in the House, if they can find the time to be here. It is shocking that the Government routinely introduce timetable motions on significant issues that should be debated at some length
Sometimes, we are accused of creating artificial obstacles and of seeing artificial problems when we urge that legislation should be given more time. However, on many occasions during my long period of membership of the House, constituents and others have written to me at, perhaps, Third Reading stage or even when legislation has been passed, pointing out that they had not appreciated the significance of the measure and asking us to do something about it. Quite often, the answer is, "No, we can't do anything about it, because it has already been passed."
The individual Members of Parliament who contribute to debates on measures are not the only people who should be part of the discussion process. There should be a decent interval between the introduction of a Bill, its consideration on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and Third Reading, so that people outside the House who may be affected by the legislation have a decent opportunity to consider it, discuss it with others who are concerned and to make representations through their Members of Parliament. My experience is that legislation is often improved by the representations made by trade associations, by individuals and by bodies such as the Hansard Society, who are concerned about our democracy.
I am not aware that any of my colleagues has urged that we should rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday. Like other hon. Members, I receive criticism about the long Easter break—I see no reason for such a long break. I see no reason, either, for legislation to be pushed through in such a precipitate manner. It is bad government and the Government should be ashamed of pushing the measure through so hurriedly. In my experience, that will lead to mistakes that we shall regret. The Government should be ashamed that they have introduced the motion.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: In winding up for the official Opposition on this important debate on the Government's extraordinary guillotine, I should like to start by looking back at what has led them to introduce such a panic guillotine motion. I go back just a couple of weeks to 21 March, when, at Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) asked:
having the option to delay some local elections requires legislation quickly, is the Prime Minister absolutely sure that he will not regret later doing nothing now?
The Prime Minister's response was very interesting, and all hon. Members ought to be remember it. He said:
I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman this: postpone until when? For one month, two months, six months?"—[Official Report, 21 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 338.]
Only a fortnight later, the Government have moved this extraordinary guillotine motion, seeking to curtail debate in a way that will, as so many hon. Members have said, lead to all the most significant parliamentary scrutiny being squeezed into no more than an hour.
When the Home Secretary moved the guillotine motion he gave a discursive and long preamble, which revealed only too clearly to all Opposition Members how embarrassed he is. We know perfectly well that he was one, in common with almost all the Cabinet, who said that he did not want to delay the local elections. There is no doubt that his reluctance to deal with the specific guillotine and the fact that he spent the vast bulk of his speech talking about other guillotines in earlier Parliaments—as the Official Report will confirm—reveals, once again, how uncomfortable he is at having to move a guillotine that he never wanted to introduce.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out all the inconsistencies in the Government's position. She rightly said that there is no justification whatever for this outrageous and absurd guillotine motion. As she said, it will hinder the interests of democracy and those of our constituents, who sent us here in the first place to hold the Government to account and to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament are in good order, well thought through and properly scrutinised.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, supports the official Opposition and shares our concerns. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) raised particular concerns about how the truncated debate on the Bill will affect Northern Ireland.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in moving his amendment, which we on the official Opposition Front Bench support, wanted to ensure that this constitutional measure receives proper debate and scrutiny. He made an extremely powerful and, in intellectual terms, an unanswerable case, as he does so often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the opportunities that there should be to debate matters properly on Second Reading, as well as managing to catch out the Home Secretary on one of several errors in some gaming legislation, for which the right hon. Gentleman gave the wrong date.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) set out the difficulties that he has with the Elections Bill. As he rightly said, the circumstances are very different in


Northern Ireland, because of the different election dates and the fact that, happily, foot and mouth does not currently affect the Province. Even more significantly, he spotted a drafting error, which the Public Bill Office had to point out to the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said in a powerful intervention, two errors have emerged during this short debate—one in the drafting of the measure, which refers to a non-existent Act, and the other when the Home Secretary referred to the wrong legislation in the wrong year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in his usual powerful contribution, there are particular dangers in the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to the need for decent intervals between the stages of any Bill, so that those outside the House can contribute their thoughts and reactions.
I was considering which factor of the Government's attitude to this guillotined Bill was particularly relevant to the debate. I was reminded that so many Opposition Members have regarded this Government's version of elective dictatorship, their bypassing of all democratic scrutiny and their contempt for the House as Orwellian. It is perhaps especially important to remember one of George Orwell's greatest works. It is sadly redolent of a debate on the introduction of emergency legislation under a tight guillotine because of a foot and mouth epidemic affecting animals. It is, of course, "Animal Farm".
All hon. Members will remember that Napoleon, the leader of the pigs, changed the rules under which the others operated. Instead of "two legs bad, four legs good", as the pigs became more human, the slogan became "two legs better". That is precisely what the Government are doing in their guillotine. They interpret words in the way that suits them. They have a complete contempt for Parliament and all democratic scrutiny, and they change the rules as they go along. Truly, this is an Orwellian Government and this is an appalling guillotine, of which any Government should be ashamed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): We should remind ourselves that we are having this debate because of the concern, which is shared on both sides of the House, about the great suffering being caused to so many by foot and mouth disease and about the proper democratic process, of which elections are, of course, a central part. I think that that is agreed, but we find ourselves in a situation that is almost without precedent.
Frankly, postponing local elections is not a step that any of us takes lightly, but we have introduced a Bill that is generally acknowledged to be in the national interest. It is a matter of urgency because the elections were due to take place in England and Wales and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, during May. So we must ensure that there is clarity for the candidates who are standing in those elections and for the councils, which need to make the necessary arrangements for the elections and for what happens afterwards.
The need for clarity is one of the reasons why we introduced the allocation of time motion. If this House and the other place do not pass the Bill, what we shall

have is an aspiration, rather than clarity about what should definitely happen. That argument must be weighed in the balance and taken seriously.
I want to comment on the argument used by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who opened the debate for the official Opposition. As she is well aware, I personally have some affection for her. Nevertheless, she occasionally has the capacity to go somewhat over the top, and others have commented on that trait. I do not think that I shall be misrepresenting her if I say that the burden of her argument, as I understood it, was that both Bills involve enormously important constitutional matters and, as such, should not be subject to a timetable motion at all. That was mote or less the burden of her speech. Indeed, she was supported by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who is sitting next to her, who complained, on behalf of the Opposition, about a lack of consultation.
Let me examine the points that the right hon. Lady made and explain what we are doing. The Election Publications Bill will do precisely what the Conservative party requested we do. On 16 March, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is described in the letter as the chief executive and registered treasurer of the Conservative party, and his letter concludes:
I look forward to hearing from you and I know that you will understand the urgency of this matter.
The subject is a matter of urgency and the chief executive and registered treasurer of the Conservative party recognises that the matter not only needs addressing, but needs addressing urgently. Those were his words.

Miss Widdecombe: Is the Minister not confusing two issues: the urgency and speed with which a Bill should be introduced and the degree of speed with which it should be carried through the House? There is common ground that both Bills had to be introduced with great urgency, but the common ground breaks up because we believe that great urgency should not be used as an excuse for no scrutiny.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Lady has set out an argument and is determined to maintain it in all circumstances. That is an understandable debating position to take. However, she should have listened carefully to what I said a moment ago. I said that political parties, local authorities, candidates and agents and everyone involved in the electoral process needed clarity. If we are to have clarity, it is urgent not only that we address the issue but that we get provisions on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I want to develop my point, but I shall give way in a minute I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to exercise a little patience.
Let me explain the purpose behind the Election Publications Bill. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 introduced new requirements for


the posters, leaflets and so on that political parties and others use in campaigns. Those new requirements were brought into effect, along with the main provisions of the Act relating to election spending and donations, from 16 February 2001. With hindsight, that was too soon for the particular provisions covered by the Election Publications Bill. Political parties and candidates all over the country were left with insufficient time to rework their election material. They are very familiar, as we all are, with the old requirements and it is right that they should be allowed to work to those requirements for a period.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that that is an important constitutional change. It is not—the Bill will put right a problem that emerged as a result of the outworkings of the Act. That is all that we are doing.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristic courtesy in giving way. If the matter is as urgent as he says, how was it that, although the Election Publications Bill was on the Order Paper on Monday when it could have been dealt with perfectly adequately, for some mysterious reason, the Government withdrew it and have brought it back to the House two days later under a one-hour time constraint? What sort of urgency is that?

Mr. Howarth: The short answer is that, since the Bills contain some common characteristics and cover some common issues, it was considered convenient to bring them together—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will allow me to proceed, I shall come to the other point that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made.
The right hon. Lady said that the Elections Bill had major constitutional implications and suggested that debate on it should be subject to an almost open-ended procedure. As she and the House know, the Bill will delay the date of the local elections. That is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition has been asking for, and precisely what, after due consideration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided was appropriate in the national interest. To describe that as a major constitutional change leaves the right hon. Lady open to the normal accusation that is made against her—she is again guilty of hyperbole.

Mr. Hawkins: In the light of the Minister's remarks and the fact that, in another place, Baroness Jay of Paddington has allowed for two days of debate, how can he justify the fact that the Government have provided this House only the rest of this evening for debate on the Elections Bill and only one hour for the important Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned?

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the issue abundantly clear in his opening speech. Circumstances in the other place are as they are because the Opposition there are far more disciplined and better organised than they are in this House. I have a sneaking admiration for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as he well knows. However, he and one or two of his colleagues have the capacity, while remaining in order, to stretch out the business of the House to sometimes ludicrous proportions. Frankly, that point has to be factored into any considerations about the business of the House.
I wish to deal with some of the arguments that have been made by Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the Government were planning to combine the polls in any event and that foot and mouth disease was used to provide just another excuse. That was the burden of his argument. Two separate issues are involved, and I think that he would acknowledge that.
First, we need to take a UK-wide approach to the outbreak of foot and mouth. Therefore, to defer until June elections across the UK seems to us to make sense. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, Northern Ireland has not been foot and mouth disease free. There has been one case, but I am sure that everyone wants to keep it at that. He is chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Assembly, so I am sure that he would agree that it is important to take all the necessary precautions to ensure that Northern Ireland remains reasonably free from foot and mouth.
Secondly, although it obviously depends on when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister calls the general election, there is a case for combining the elections. The argument for combining the two polls relates to the effect on voter turnout. There is evidence that, if two polls are conducted on one day, turnout is higher. Surely that is good for democracy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister is well aware of the regionalisation in Northern Ireland. The supremo of Europe has declared that we do not have foot and mouth disease in any council area except one. That is the legal position. He should not keep saying that we have foot and mouth disease where we do not. On voter turnout in local government elections, Northern Ireland has a good record on that compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Labour party had all those people turning out to vote, it would not be changing the law.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the turnout for local elections in Northern Ireland is far better than it is on the mainland, especially in inner-city areas in England and some wards in my constituency. My point is that it could be even higher.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Until Monday, it was a line-ball decision whether the Prime Minister would go ahead with the council elections on 3 May. Northern Ireland has had one outbreak of foot and mouth, and that was a month ago. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the disease is a relevant consideration for changing the established date in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howarth: Had the hon. and learned Gentleman exercised a little patience, I would have addressed that issue. However, before I do, let me say that I do not want to exaggerate the problem; I accept that the level of foot and mouth is very low in Northern Ireland. I am simply trying to take notice of what people are saying about keeping it that way.

Mr. Öpik: I apologise for not being present for much of the debate. I have been dealing with problems associated with foot and mouth and have returned because we were assured that the Minister would resolve why the date is to be changed in Northern Ireland. Is he going to explain why so little time has been allocated to discuss


such important matters? I have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns of hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. He might have a plausible defence by pleading the problems of foot and mouth, but I am not sure that he can defend the time that has been allocated to discuss it.

Mr. Howarth: Having been candidates, all hon. Members must accept—even if they are not prepared to acknowledge it in public—that people who stand in elections for local government or Parliament need to be clear about the procedures involved. To be honest, if the Bills were not agreed to quickly, we would not have the necessary clarity.
As for foot and mouth in Northern Ireland, let me make the position clear. Only one case has been confirmed there and, as has been rightly said, the export ban has been eased. However, extensive precautions remain in place because of the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, where 5 per cent. of jobs are in agriculture compared with only 1.6 per cent. in the UK as a whole. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will be aware that the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has called for a fortress farming approach, with movement on and off farms kept to an absolute minimum. In addition, 19 road blocks are in place in and around a 10 km surveillance zone in Newry and Mourne. Although there is a low incidence of foot and mouth in Northern Ireland, the conditions that have been applied have kept it that way. Some severe restrictions on movement are still in place in the Newry and Mourne area.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister graciously giving way, especially as my constituency of Belfast, South is not greatly affected by foot and mouth. Does he acknowledge that the fortress approach is to allow Northern Ireland to maintain its disease-free status? Is he suggesting that if the election were held in Northern Ireland on 16 May, that would spread the disease? It seems to me that the only foot and mouth disease is in the Chamber today, where hon. Members are constantly putting their foot in their mouth as they mix electioneering with legislation.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the implications for his constituency. As he rightly says, it is not affected by foot and mouth, except with regard to the new date for local elections. However, restrictions are in place in Newry and Mourne. Heaven forbid that the situation should get worse in coming weeks—I do not anticipate that—but there could be additional problems.
On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), the hon. Member for North Antrim and others have raised concerns about the procedures. All arrangements for colour coding of ballot papers and so on have been considered in great detail, as has the issue of security. I am confident that measures to combat possible confusion will be implemented. In addition, the hon. Gentleman knows that the chief electoral officer goes to great lengths to ensure that ballot boxes are secure. He will continue to do that.

Mr. Grieve: I am finding it difficult to follow the Minister's logic on Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister

and the Home Secretary explained the postponement of local elections in England. Their reason was not that it was impossible to have free and fair elections, but that their commitment and heavy involvement in fighting the outbreak made it difficult to concentrate on holding an election. That is not the case in Northern Ireland because the outbreak is not on the same scale.

Mr. Howarth: I can only apologise if the hon. Gentleman has not been able to follow my argument. My simple point is that Northern Ireland has a low level of foot and mouth infection. We intend it to stay that way. Despite yesterday's easement, some restrictions remain in place and the change is desirable.
The Bill has a clear purpose: it postpones for a short time elections that were due to take place next month.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to be in the Chamber for most of the debate and will know that I have moved an amendment to consider the matter over two days. Will he be good enough to give the Government's response to that suggestion?

Mr. Howarth: I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.
The reasons for the course of action have been fully and responsibly set out by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. From a practical perspective, it is possible for the elections to go ahead, but that would not be right in the circumstances. The Government are acting in the best interests of the rural community, the electorate and the nation. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided. Ayes 185, Noes 320.

Division No. 177]
[6.39 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony



Ballard, Jackie
Collins, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunt, Crispin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brake, Tom
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fearn, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fraser, Christopher


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gale, Roger



Garnier, Edward






George, Andrew (St Ives)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman Archie


Gidley, Sandra
Oaten, Mark


Gill, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ottaway Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paice, James


Gray, James
Paisley, Rev Ian


Green, Damian
Paterson, Owen


Greenway, John
Pickles, Eric


Grieve, Dominic
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Prior, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rendel, David


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Robertson Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Harvey, Nick
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hawkins, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hayes, John
Ross William (E Lond'y)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Sanders, Adrian


Horam, John
Sayeed Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Soames, Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Keetch, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Stunell, Andrew



Swayne, Desmond


Key, Robert
Syms, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Leigh, Edward
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Letwin, Oliver
Thompson, William


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tyler, Paul


Loughton, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew


Luff, Peter
Viggers Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walter, Robert


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Waterson, Nigel


McCrea, Dr William
Webb, Steve


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whittingdale, John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Willetts, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willis, Phil


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maples, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mates, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. John Randall and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moss, Malcolm





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainger, Nick
Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Bailey, Adrian


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Banks, Tony



Barnes, Harry


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Barron, Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Battle, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bayley, Hugh





Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Edwards, Huw


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Efford, Clive


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bennett, Andrew F
Ennis, Jeff


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Best, Harold
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Betts, Clive
Flynn, Paul


Blackman, Liz
Follett, Barbara


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galloway, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Gapes, Mike


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Hain, Peter


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Colman, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dobbin, Jim
Joyce, Eric


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)






Khabra, Piara S
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Levitt, Torn



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWilliam, John



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Maxton, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Stevenson, George


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mudie, George
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Timms, Stephen


Norris, Dan
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jon


O'Hara, Eddie
Truswell, Paul


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pendry, Rt Hon Tom
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Perham, Ms Linda
Tynan, Bill


Pickthall, Colin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pollard, Kerry
Wareing, Robert N


Pond, Chris
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
White, Brian


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wills, Michael
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Greg Pope.


Wood, Mike



Woodward, Shaun

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put.—

The House divided. Ayes 318, Noes 179.

Division No. 178]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coaker, Vernon


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry



Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbett, Robin


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin, John
Corston, Jean


Bailey, Adrian
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony
Cranston, Ross


Barnes, Harry
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Battle, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, Rt Hon John


Best, Harold
Dismore, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Browne, Desmond
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fyfe, Maria


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gerrard, Neil



Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hendrick, Mark
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Mitchell, Austin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moffatt, Laura


Hood, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Dr Kim
Mountford, Kali


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mudie, George


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Matin


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Joyce, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Lammy, David
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robertson, John (Glasgtow Anniesland)


Laxton, Bob



Leslie, Christopher
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Joan


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shipley, Ms Debra


McFall, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Skinner, Dennis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Soley, Clive
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Spellar, John
Tynan, Bill


Squire, Ms Rachel
Vis, Dr Rudi


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Walley, Ms Joan


Steinberg, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
White, Brian


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woodward, Shaun


Temple-Morris, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Timms, Stephen



Todd, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Greg Pope.


Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


A[...]ess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Fallon, Michael


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Feam, Ronnie


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Flight, Howard


Bercow, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunt, Crispin
Fox, Dr Liam


Body, Sir Richard
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brady, Graham
Gibb, Nick


Brake, Tom
Gidley, Sandra


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gray, James


Burnett, John
Green, Damian


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John


Burstow, Paul
Grieve, Dominic


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hague, Rt Hon William


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie



Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Hancock, Mike


Clappison, James
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, John



Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Cotter, Brian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Horam, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard






Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffery
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ruffley, David


Keetch, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Key, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sanders, Adrian


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Shepherd, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lansley, Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Leigh, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Letwin, Oliver
Soames, Nicholas


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stunell, Andrew


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Swayne, Desmond


McCrea, Dr William
Syms, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Madel, Sir David
Thompson, William


Maples, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mates, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tyler, Paul


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyrie, Andrew


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Walter, Robert


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Webb, Steve


Oaten, Mark
Wells, Bowen


Öpik, Lembit
Whittingdale, John


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Willetts, David


Paterson, Owen
Willis, Phil


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rendel, David



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Peter Luff and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Elections Bill and the Election Publications Bill [Lords]—

Timing of proceedings on the Elections Bill

1.—(1) On the Elections Bill, proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock.
3. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.

2.—(l) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill:

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.


(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Timing of proceedings on the Election Publications Bill [Lords]

3.—(1) On the Election Publications Bill [Lords], proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock.

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; and
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Questions to be put

4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3.

(2) The Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or tinder sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill

5.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.

6.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 5.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and


(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages of the Elections Bill

7.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Elections Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

8.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 7.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Elections Bill

9.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Elections Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put fort with successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Subsequent stages of the Election Publications Bill [Lords]

10.—(1) Any Message (or further Message) from the Lords on the Election Publications Bill [Lords] shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any Message (or further Message) from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

11.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee for the Election Publications Bill [Lords]

12.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Election Publications Bill [Lords] and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

13.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.


(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

14.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

16.—(1) The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(3) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

17. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—[Mr. Straw.]

Elections Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
During debate on the allocation of time motion, I spoke in considerable detail about the reasons not only for the guillotine, but for the introduction of the Bill. I shall not repeat those general remarks now, but it might be helpful for me briefly to speak about each of the clauses.
Clause 1 provides that the ordinary local elections that were due to take place for 34 English county councils and 11 English unitary authorities on 3 May will instead be deferred to 7 June. It also provides that any by-elections to fill casual vacancies in other local authorities will take place on 7 June, instead of during the period of deferral. As I explained to the House on Monday, it is not possible to defer by-elections that are due on Thursdays before, but not including, 3 May, as they are already too far down the track.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I realise that the Home Secretary will not tell us whether a general election will occur on 7 June. If an election were to occur on that date, however, would a by-election that had been deferred for a minor authority such as a town council take place if it was timetabled to occur at the same time? I ask that question because a town council by-election would not usually be permitted to occur on the same day as a general election.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right, as parish and town council elections are usually deferred if they are scheduled for the date of a general election. I think that they are delayed for a period of two or three weeks. I was going to explain the related provision later in my speech, but I shall say now that clause 7, which deals with consequential provision, allows orders to be made to enable town or parish council elections to occur notwithstanding the circumstances that he describes.
We have done the best trawl that we can, and it happens that very few parish or town council elections are occurring this year, as they do not usually occur in the same year as shire county elections. There are one or two areas in which new town councils are being established, and there are also some by-elections. I shall listen carefully to arguments and representations, but I will not speculate on whether a general election will occur on 7 June, although that is obviously a possible date. If a general election were scheduled to occur on that date, hon. Members on both sides of the House might decide that the deferral of parish or town council elections by two or three weeks is unacceptable. In many areas, such deferral would mean that the elections occurred in a holiday period. If hon. Members held that view, they might then request that we introduce an appropriate order. If representations are made, I will be happy to listen to them with great care. I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Clause 1 also provides that a candidate who was validly nominated for the elections that would have taken place on 3 May will remain so without the need to submit fresh


nomination papers for the elections on 7 June. One of the amendments tabled by the official Opposition is, I think, based on an anxiety that the rolling register means that candidates could be validly nominated as at 3 May, but if one or other of the people who nominated them ceased to be on the register, it could appear that they had not been validly nominated for 7 June. May I say, to reassure the Opposition, that nominations for 7 June will be fully valid if they were so for 3 May, and anything that happens thereafter, such as someone ceasing to be on the register, will not be relevant to their validity. If they were valid yesterday, they will be valid on 7 June.
Yesterday was the closing date for nominations, and that will remain the case until the Bill is passed. Assuming that it is passed, people who had been validly nominated as of yesterday will be able to withdraw their nomination papers up to 15 May, and it will be open to any individual to submit new nomination papers until 10 May, which will be the closing date for nominations for any local elections held on 7 June, using the normal election timetable. The close of applications fur absent votes will be at 5 pm on Wednesday 30 May.

Mr. John Greenway: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is still the intention to publish the nominations list at lunchtime tomorrow? Does he not think that, even at this late stage, that should be avoided if possible? Otherwise, people will be able to judge who has been nominated in the normal course of events and then seek to put up other candidates to wreck their prospects. We all know that the nominations list is secret until it is published, which is when the nomination process has closed. The Home Secretary should give some thought to that.

Mr. Straw: Frankly, there is no way round that. The law applies until it is changed. Even if the Bill proceeds according to the time scale that the Government have in mind, it cannot become law until next Tuesday at the earliest. Meanwhile, electoral registration officers are under a legal duty, which we expect them to perform, to observe the law. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In practice, the intelligence in any particular ward or electoral area is such that, roughly speaking, people know who will stand at a pretty early stage. I am already the subject of endless rumours about which of the usual six or seven non-traditional party candidates is likely to stand in my constituency, whenever a general election takes place. In most cases, people will have lined up in advance of the close of nominations for 3 May. Some may not have done, but we will have to accept that.
In recognition of the fact that the local election campaign will inevitably be longer and that some candidates may already have incurred wasted expenditure, such as having leaflets printed giving the election date as 3 May, we are raising the elections expenses limit for candidates for 7 June by 50 per cent. We do not think that many candidates will have expended much money. My knowledge of how candidates in every party operate at a local election level tells me that they tend not to have their leaflets printed until late in the day, but of course some do so earlier. It is possible in small electoral divisions for people manually to change dates on leaflets.
Notwithstanding that, it would be quite wrong if, as a result of the date change, a candidate who had already lawfully spent money on abortive campaigning faced

disqualification because his total expenditure was over the limit, which is why we are increasing it by 50 per cent. That figure was based not on any scientific survey but on my judgment of the maximum amount that anybody was likely to have spent at this stage in the campaign.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I accept the good will with which the Home Secretary is tackling this difficult situation, but he is talking about his intuition. Did he take any soundings from political parties or returning officers to ascertain whether the 50 per cent. increase was enough?

Mr. Straw: I took informal soundings, but I do not want to suggest that the figure was based on anything but my judgment. We all have a nose for these matters, if I may put it that way. I did many calculations and, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the spending limit for an electoral area in county council elections is a flat rate of £240 plus 4.7p per elector, so we are not talking about huge sums. I think that a 50 per cent. increase will be satisfactory.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Home Secretary accept that a better, more logical argument for that welcome increase is that many candidates in rural areas will now have to use the post, and they have no free postage, as I pointed out to the Leader of the House? People who jump the gun in advance of nomination day and print their leaflets in anticipation of an election are not to be encouraged. I offer him the better argument that candidates in some areas will find it necessary but expensive to use the post.

Mr. Straw: That is a good point. It is probably better than the one that I made—but if I am asked why I decided on a 50 per cent. increase, I cannot use the hon. Gentleman's argument because I did not think of it. I shall use the original argument on which the increase was based.
Clause 2 makes similar changes in respect of the district council elections that were scheduled to take place in Northern Ireland on 16 May. It makes no reference to by-elections for the simple reason that all 26 district councils in Northern Ireland were up for election on that date, and as no by-elections need to be held within six months of ordinary elections, there are no casual vacancies that would otherwise have been filled by by-elections.
The Northern Ireland provisions were discussed in the earlier debate by representatives of some Northern Ireland parties and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). It is self-evident that the bulk of the Bill is related to the Province. It takes the opportunity to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by providing that, if a general election and local elections fall on the same day, the polls should be combined.
Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 requires that, where two or more elections are to be held at the same time, they are to be taken together or combined. That has been the consistent practice for many years in Great Britain, but the Act was never extended to Northern Ireland. It means that if local elections and a


general election were to fall on the same day, the polls could not be combined, so voters effectively would have to vote twice. Polling could not be in the same room and voters would have to present themselves to polling stations twice to be issued with separate ballot papers. That does not stop elections being held on the same day, but it creates something of a pantomime in their administration.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Has it occurred to the Home Secretary that local government elections and general elections have not taken place on the same day in Northern Ireland because of the two separate and distinct methods of voting—the first-past-the-post system and proportional representation? Is it correct that the Government, for political reasons other than the foot and mouth outbreak, had in the pipeline provisions for amalgamating the two elections on the same day for the purpose of aiding some parties in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Straw: The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question is that the matter was under consideration, but no final decision had been made. This problem intervened, and a final decision was made—[Interruption.] That is true. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me, and I have told him exactly what the position is.
The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's first question is as he anticipated: there are two systems, single transferable vote and first past the post. That has been the traditional explanation—indeed, the only real explanation—of why there cannot be combined polls in Northern Ireland. However, during the elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the electorate in Scotland and Wales were perfectly capable of understanding that there were two separate ballot papers and two separate systems. The Scottish and Welsh elections in 1999 were held on the same day for the Parliament and the Assembly and for unitary councils, and they went off without incident. The same applied in London, where there were separate ballots, albeit under the same umbrella. As a Londoner, I had two ballot papers: one for the mayor using one election system, and another for Assembly Members using a different system.
Experience in the United Kingdom and in other countries with far more complex electoral systems shows that voters' intelligence is, to put it bluntly, not to be insulted. They understand the system, and an examination of the variations in turnout shows no correlation between the complexity of the electoral system and turnout one way or the other.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In a strange intervention, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take too long? We must finish Second Reading and the Committee stage by 9 o'clock. Some amendments deal with issues of substance, are wholly in order, and have been selected by the Chairman. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give us time to get to those amendments.

Mr. Straw: I have already cut out great swathes of my speech. The only reason I have taken any time is that I have taken interventions. I shall skip over the rest of the provisions on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for detaining the House, but this is probably our only chance

to ask the Home Secretary certain questions. In 30 seconds, can he explain why, in the Government's judgment, we need to shift the Northern Ireland elections? We went into that matter a little during the allocation of time debate, but can he say unequivocally for the record what the reason for that shift is?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a much greater expert on Northern Ireland than I am, as are others. I defer to him on Northern Ireland matters—and on many others, which we need not go into. [HON. MEMBERS: "More details."] Later. As my hon. Friend explained, the change is for the convenience of electors. I do not think that electors would take kindly to polls on separate dates, but the more important issue is that of foot and mouth. These are balanced judgments, but that is why we came to that view.
Clause 6 deals with compensation. In my statement on Monday, I explained that local authorities, which are responsible for meeting the full costs of local elections, inevitably will have incurred costs in the run-up to the elections that would have taken place in May. Local authorities will be obliged to go on incurring expenditure until the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is a good reason for its quick and smooth passage. Clause 6 gives me, as Secretary of Slate, the power to establish a scheme to compensate local authorities for the unavoidable additional expenditure incurred as a consequence of the deferral of the elections.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the clause also cover the cost incurred by local authorities in providing polling stations when churches, because of foot and mouth, have withdrawn facilities that have hitherto been available?

Mr. Straw: I shall have to give the hon. Gentleman a reply later through my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he winds up the debate. The idea is that the clause should cover any necessary and unavoidable expenses caused by this delay. We do not want local authorities to be in a different position as a result of the deferral of the elections from the one they would have been in if the elections were to be held on 3 May.
In the exchanges on Monday, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked whether we were making provision for candidates who have had abortive expenditure because of this change to be given compensation out of the public purse. I said that I would discuss the matter with her and with the Liberal Democrats. We have looked into the issue, and I have discussed it with the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and with officials of my party.
The parties are agreed that, in the current circumstances, it would he inappropriate for candidates of registered political parties to be compensated from public funds. I think that that will have the House's approbation. I thought that it was important to look into the matter and consult, but given that some people are unquestionably in worse circumstances as a result of foot and mouth—and for reasons that the House will understand have not received compensation—I am glad that the parties have agreed to that view.
I do not intend to change the powers to provide a scheme. Clause 6(1)(a) allows for compensation to be paid to candidates. I want to keep that option open,


because although it is unlikely to be used, a farmer who has suffered grievously as a result of foot and mouth may stand as an independent candidate, and if he or she has lost money they cannot fall back on the funds of a registered party. In fairness, their claim should at least be considered. I give the House an undertaking that if I receive any such representations I will consult the other parties before making a final decision on a scheme. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): The Bill has arisen because of the rapidly moving events of foot and mouth. The Home Secretary has told the House that postal votes will be valid up to 30 May. In the event that an exclusion zone is declared between 30 May and 7 June, assuming the election is on that day, would he be able to give returning officers the power to issue blanket postal votes for that exclusion zone under the consequential provisions in clause 7?

Mr. Straw: I shall have to get my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to provide a detailed answer when he winds up the debate. My guess is that the consequential provisions may allow that, because the order-making powers have been necessarily made wide. Under an earlier Bill—not the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—we have already provided, by all-party agreement, for postal votes on demand. We are putting a lot of effort into advertising postal votes on demand, including in the farming press and in the local press in the areas most affected by foot and mouth. The time for applying for a postal vote has been considerably reduced to six working days. I hope that everyone in the affected areas will, in any event, apply for a postal vote. Practical problems were involved in the time scale, given that applications must be submitted and checked and ballot papers must be sent and returned—by post—in time for the close of polling on 3 May.
I hope that I have explained the Bill.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): In order to allow the House to debate important amendments, I intend to be briefish. If I am not interrupted too much, I shall even be able to remove the "ish" and be brief.
As I made clear on Monday, we welcome the fact that the Government have, albeit belatedly, accepted the argument that we first presented more than two weeks ago, but if I had doubts before about the wisdom of the guillotine motion that we debated earlier, they have been reinforced by the Home Secretary's inability to reply to some of the points that were raised. It suggests to me that the Bill has not been thought through thoroughly enough. That may be understandable given the time scale that is available, but it should sound a terrible warning about the sort of legislation that we may produce when we gallop through it at such an unnecessary rate.
It is unfortunate that the Bill is being introduced only now, after the legal timetable for the elections has begun. That has undoubtedly caused confusion, and it is regrettable that the Government did not see fit to take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago.
We do not believe that the Government have got it entirely right now. In specifying a fixed date of 7 June for local elections, they have left no room for manoeuvre.

They have not allowed for the possibility that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease may not be under control in at least some parts of the country by that time. We have heard the words "long haul" used in relation to the resolution of the crisis. The 7 June date seems very out of synch with the notion of a long haul.
Conservative Members do not believe that the House should work according to the arbitrary date of 7 June. We believe that further powers should be taken to allow further postponement of the elections in some areas if it is clear that the crisis is not under control.
If it took until last Friday for the Government to decide that it was not appropriate to hold elections on 3 May, it is impossible to see how they can be confident at this point that it will be possible to hold them on 7 June. Such a proposition is illogical, and smacks of panic. The Government have admitted that the scale and spread of the foot and mouth crisis has caught them by surprise. The official figures show that the epidemic continues to run out of control, and that the action to contain it has not always been adequate.
We cannot be certain today that the crisis will have been brought under control—still less that the disease will have been eradicated—by 7 June. That is why Conservative Members think that the Bill should not set 7 June in stone. In Committee, we shall table amendments providing for an alternative procedure.
I am not saying that it is necessarily impossible to hold elections on 7 June; I am saying that we cannot rely on the fact that it will be possible to do so. It is clear from the Bill itself that the date has been chosen not because the local elections need to be held within a month of their original date, or because it is foreseeable that the crisis will be under control by then, but simply because the Prime Minister wants to hold a general election at the earliest available opportunity, despite the fact that the Government's term of office still has more than a year to run. When I hear Ministers talking about "putting back the election", I have to remind them that there is no question of putting it back; they are desperate to bring it forward, by as much as a year.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has proposed four objective tests to determine whether the foot and mouth epidemic is sufficiently under control for elections to be justified. They are replicated in our amendment. They require the time between the reporting of a new case and the time of slaughter to have been reduced to 24 hours or less, geographical spread of the disease to have been reversed, movement restrictions to have been lifted from most farms and the trend in new cases to be clearly and sustainably downward. We shall return to that issue later—at least I hope we shall, the guillotine permitting.
On Monday, the Home Secretary told the House:
We judge that, in terms of practical arrangements, polling in May would be possible and would produce fair results.
He cited the wider availability of postal votes, saying that
telephone canvassing is now a key way in which voters in rural and urban areas are contacted by candidates".—[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 21.]
Does the Home Secretary accept that there may be practical difficulties on 7 June, even with postal voting? Can he state categorically that all farmers in affected areas are able, and will be able, both to send and to receive post? Is it not the case that some cannot, because they are


confined to their farms? I raised the points about postal voting with the Home Secretary in a written question for answer yesterday, but as of today—the day on which we are being asked to consider the Bill—no such answer has been provided.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that telephone canvassing may not reach rural electors, either because they have no telephones or because their numbers are not publicly available? What assessment has he made of the implications of increased telephone canvassing for candidates in affected areas who may be operating on tight budgets, notwithstanding the increase in the expenditure limit for which the Bill provides?
The date of 7 June may also pose practical problems for candidates who are themselves farmers, and who live in restricted areas. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised that point last month and I repeated it on Monday, but as yet we have received no response. How does the Home Secretary propose that such people should proceed if the outbreak is not under control by 7 June?
I should be grateful for a precise response from the Home Secretary, or from the Minister who winds up the debate, to another point that has been raised. Concern is rising in schools, because many are used for election purposes and 7 June falls in the middle of the GCSE period. That could cause considerable difficulties, and I should be glad to know what thought the Home Secretary has given to it. If he has given no thought to it—which would be entirely in character, given his response to other issues that have been raised—I hope that he will do so.
In response to the Home Secretary's statement on Monday 2 April, I raised the issue of compensation for candidates who may have, in good faith, spent large sums on election literature that is now inaccurate, or contains the wrong date, as a result of the Government's tardy change of mind. The Bill provides for a compensation scheme to compensate both individual candidates and registered political parties for their expenditure on such literature. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's further consideration of the matter, and thank him for consulting both me and the Liberal Democrats.
Conservative Members believe that the scheme should be restricted to independent candidates, and that candidates from registered political parties should not benefit from it. We also believe that criteria for the scheme should identify a clear threshold for the claiming of compensation by independent candidates, and that it should apply only when there is a significant probability of such candidates' not being able to mount a campaign in the run-up to 7 June because they have already spent their resources on material that will have to be destroyed, and are unable to raise fresh funds.
Because of the Government's guillotine, other issues—besides that of the arbitrary date—may never be debated. There is, for example, the issue of proposers, seconders and assenters, and the issue of the rolling register. The Home Secretary mentioned that in his speech; but there are also issues of detail. I do not think I heard the right hon. Gentleman deal with another anxiety that we have expressed, relating to whether the deadline for meetings of police and other authorities to which councils nominate members is being extended. A further issue is the update

of the rolling electoral register, which is due next month and which is important to all political parties. Because of a lacuna in the relevant regulations, some registration officers are apparently unwilling to provide parties with updates.
I hope that the Home Secretary is laughing at an aside, rather than at the worries of electoral registration officers. If he concentrates, he may find out about things that he has not considered. That will make the parties' position at a June election even more difficult.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): The Home Secretary is still not listening.

Miss Widdecombe: No, he is not.
We tabled a new clause to deal with the issue, but unfortunately it was not selected for debate in Committee, so I should be grateful to hear how it will be dealt with.
The Opposition support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend support the provision of free post for local government candidates on this occasion? Although there may be difficulties in getting post to and from farmers, it is important that every elector knows who is standing in the local authority concerned. Without an election address, how will it be done, as canvassing in many rural areas is out of the question?

Miss Widdecombe: There will be areas in the run-up to 7 June—there are such areas now—where it will not be practical to deliver mail. Therefore, serious consideration should be given to a free post for candidates, at least in those areas. Again, we have raised that matter but have not received a definitive answer.

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): Perhaps the right hon. Lady should ask the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is a free postal drop at council elections in Northern Ireland.

Miss Widdecombe: I could ask the Under-Secretary that question, but if he responds in the same way as the Home Secretary—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) knows full well, for reasons mainly to do with the security situation in the past in Northern Ireland, local government candidates have a free post.

Miss Widdecombe: Therefore, it can be done and is done in some parts of the United Kingdom. Why should it not be done in areas that have been unusually affected by a crisis so great that it has caused the postponement of the local elections? I would be grateful for an answer. If there are some insuperable difficulties that we have not seen, I would be grateful to know what they are. I would be glad if the Home Secretary tried to convince us about some of those things, instead of brushing them aside.
As I have said, we support the principle of the Bill. I look forward, more in hope than in faith, to constructive discussions about the issues that I have raised and about others that will come up during the Committee


proceedings. I have kept my speech to half the time that the Home Secretary took. I hope that the same spirit will be observed on the Labour Benches before we get to Committee.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the question of Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 350, the Noes were nine, so the question was agreed to.
On the question of waste electrical and electronic equipment, the Ayes were 346, the Noes were 126, so the question was agreed to.
On the question of social security, the Ayes were 435, the Noes were 38, so the question was agreed to.

[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Elections Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Tony Wright: I shall detain the House but briefly.
Inside the House, we are not supposed to be uncertain about things, but I was one of the Members who was genuinely uncertain about whether it was necessary to move the election date. I was not persuaded that foot and mouth was the greatest crisis that this country had experienced since the second world war and that this extraordinary action was therefore required, but at the same time I was impressed with the way in which the Prime Minister clearly felt that it was right—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) laughs, but it is a serious consideration. The Prime Minister felt that it was right to respect sensitivities and to do something that he was not inclined to do. That should be respected.
If the Opposition—they have now provoked me—could make such decisions, they would be introducing the Elections (Indefinite Postponement) Bill. That would be the short title: the long title would say, "Until we have a new leader, new policies and some more support". We know where they are coming from, but the Government have taken an extraordinary decision.
My only reservation about the Bill and the proposed postponement is that I am not sure that it is the job of politicians to decide when elections should be held. It is a fairly fundamental point, and it is what we are being asked to do now. We are being asked to do so because there is a joker in the pack, which is that there has to be a general election on the day of the local elections. I say "has to": there is going to be one. [Interruption.] If that comes as a revelation to hon. Members, I should tell them that there will be a general election on 7 June.

[Interruption.] We will see what happens. Opposition Members will see whether they are right, or whether I am right.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a matter of law, there does not have to be a general election until 3 June 2002?

Tony Wright: Indeed. Many voters believe that they are voting for five-year Parliaments, but the average length of a Parliament since the second world war is three years and seven months, so four years has come to be the rough working average. That fact guides all our assumptions. The joker in the pack, if we are honest with ourselves, is the fact that there has to be, or it is believed that there has to be, a general election on the same day as the local elections, and that there is to be a general election on 7 June. All those things have to be put in the pot, and as a result local elections are being postponed to the date of the general election. That is the fundamental point.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman at least accept that, as a common-sense proposition, it would have made sense, once it began to be mooted that the local elections might have to be shifted, to prepare a contingency Bill or set of regulations? Equally, does he not think that it makes sense for the Government to build flexibility into the Bill in case his absolute assurances about 7 June prove not to be practical?

Tony Wright: I have a slightly different approach. I understand the hon. Gentleman's approach, but my approach is to question whether these matters should be in the hands of politicians at all. The question of when elections should be held is of fundamental constitutional importance. It is a constitutional fixture and politicians should not be able to get their sticky fingers on it. That would be viewed as an outrage in most other constitutional democracies, but we believe that it is entirely normal that we can mess around with such things at whim. We juggle all sorts of political considerations that have consequences and complications, which the Bill aims to tackle.
At one time, the Labour party was on the path of righteousness on these matters. Up until 1992, it believed that such decisions should not be in the hands of politicians. Indeed, its 1992 election manifesto said:
No government with a majority should be allowed to put the interests of party above government, as the Conservatives have done. Although an early election will sometimes be necessary, we would introduce as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term".
That was right then and it is right now. Apart from the fact that we are now in office, I am not sure why we have moved from that position. When we were setting up new Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we stayed on the path of righteousness and provided for fixed terms.
We introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—a good measure that sought to control spending in a pre-election period. It is much harder to do that if one does not know when the election is to be.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I cannot understand my hon. Friend's logic. He argues that there should be a fixed term, but this deferral of the local elections is clearly


a breach of that. Is he saying that a fixed term should never be varied, or that the current proposal is not acceptable?

Tony Wright: I am saying that we have the Bill in this form, on this date, because the considerations that are being juggled are not the narrow considerations in the Bill but the wider considerations of choosing the date for a general election.

Mr. Gapes: No.

Tony Wright: If my hon. Friend does not know that, where is he? Perhaps we should pretend to ourselves that that is not the case, but we do a disservice to the people whom we represent if we maintain that pretence in public.
On the extraordinarily exceptional occasions when a fixed election might have to be moved, are politicians the best people to make the decision? We have just established an Electoral Commission—another excellent thing—and these are pre-eminently the circumstances, when an extraordinary event occurs that suggests that a constitutional fixture might have to be moved, when such an independent commission, operating on grounds of public interest, not of short-term, narrow political advantage, should be brought into play.
Sometimes, out of disaster, good sense breaks out. I hope that, as the House considers the Bill, we will heed the argument for taking the setting of election dates away from politicians and putting it into the hands of someone who can safeguard the public interest.

Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made it clear in an earlier debate that the Liberal Democrats totally oppose the way in which the Government are handling the Bill. The way it is being rushed through the House is nothing short of a constitutional disgrace. I agree with the remarks made in that debate by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when he described it as a scandal.
I agree entirely, however, with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the principle of the Bill should be supported. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Prime Minister was faced with an enormously difficult decision and that the decision to defer, taken after due reflection, was the right one.
The only point on which I fundamentally disagreed with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) was when he rather implied that the Prime Minister had made that decision on a whim. The whole House will have welcomed the hon. Gentleman's refreshingly honest speech, which contained much common sense and a great deal with which all Liberal Democrats would entirely agree, since we have long argued for fixed electoral terms. With characteristic honesty, he also said that there will certainly be a general election on 7 June—"Trust me, I'm a politician." I am entirely convinced that he will be proved right.
I want to refer to some amendments that, because of the shortness of time, we will not have time to discuss in Committee. If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and

The Weald persists with the amendments suggesting that the delay could be not simply to 7 June but to any one of a number of different dates, and that those dates could be different in different parts of the country, she will certainly get no support from the Liberal Democrats. The notion of having local government elections on different dates in different areas strikes us as frankly crazy. It would be unfair to certain groups of electors and wholly impracticable.
I suspect that the Government share that view. I am grateful that they have quickly produced the new election timetable, but I note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove did, that it had to be rapidly revised 24 hours after its original publication.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: As ever, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions I always so much enjoy.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We are at an early stage in our deliberations, and he need not have been quite so generous to me. I suggest, however, that it would be unwise for him to worship at the altar of 7 June. I understand his point on different dates for elections in different areas—although I do not agree with it—but does he accept that for the Government to insist on that date, and to die in the ditch for it, is both arbitrary and capricious?

Mr. Foster: No, I do not. I am delighted, incidentally, that the hon. Gentleman said that I was being too generous in giving way to him. As that was the first intervention in my speech, I will bear that in mind the next time he tries for a third or fourth intervention, as he so often does when I speak in other debates.
It is important that the delay be a relatively short one, because it would do democracy a huge disservice if there were to be continuing uncertainty about the date of the local government elections. Conservative Members have tabled amendments pointing out that we need greater clarity about the dates of other events, such as the annual meetings of police and fire authorities. I am sure that they would agree that there must be clarity about when the local elections are to be, and that only in extreme circumstances—perhaps those in which primary legislation is required—should we contemplate any further delay beyond 7 June.
I want to make a few remarks about Northern Ireland, as I fear that we will not reach the amendments tabled on the issue. It is important that the Government should be given the opportunity to make further comments about the situation in Northern Ireland before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that the Minister will say something about the possibility of both elections—general and local—being held on the same day, and the arrangements that would be put in place for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was absolutely confident on the security issue, but I do not think that that confidence is widely shared in the House. Undoubtedly other hon. Members will wish to comment on that matter.
There are huge questions, for example, about who will have legal responsibility for the verification of ballot boxes in a joint election. People will want an answer to


that question. Quite legitimate questions are also being asked about the arrangements for postal votes. It appears that, if a dual election were held on 7 June, postal voting arrangements for the two elections would be different. Such arrangements could cause great confusion, so plans need to be put in place quickly to sort them out.

Mr. Öpik: Would my hon. Friend welcome a reassurance that the proposed arrangements will not leave the door open to increased electoral malpractice in the Province?

Mr. Foster: I am sure that every hon. Member would like to be absolutely assured by Ministers that every conceivable arrangement is being made to avoid malpractice in Northern Ireland and in every other part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will give us clear assurances on those issues. I hope that he will also give us clear assurances that there will continue to be consultation with the relevant body on those issues.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope very much that he will be a little more convincing about the foot and mouth aspect of delay in Northern Ireland. I was slightly surprised by another outbreak of honesty when the Minister said that the measure is about increasing voter turnout at the elections. Although I am greatly in favour of measures to improve voter turnout, I do not think that that objective can justify changing the agreed date of an election. Although increased turnout as a by-product of the change is welcome, the decision for the change must be based on the foot and mouth outbreak.
I have various quick questions for the Minister, which he may be able to answer in his reply. There is some confusion about whether the Bill will make the necessary change to the Local Government Act 1972, which specifically provides that county councillors' term of office shall be for four years. That term will clearly be altered if the Bill is passed, but I have seen no reference to that alteration in the Bill. May I have an assurance that the issue is being addressed?
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald mentioned the use of schools for the later election. We noted with interest the Home Secretary's statement that local authorities' expenses will be allowed if they were unavoidably incurred because of the electoral delay, but not if they were caused by the foot and mouth issue. So although the legislation may not deal with church buildings, which were mentioned earlier, presumably it will deal with the issue of finding alternative premises to schools that are being used for GCSEs. There may be some confusion about that issue and it would be helpful if we had some clarification on it.
I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald on changing the date of the police and fire authority annual meetings. We will definitely join Conservative Members in the Lobby to vote on the change if the Government do not accept the amendment.
I was delighted that the Home Secretary gave us a very clear assurance on the validity of nominations in relation to the rolling electoral arrangements.
Local councils will face another problem because of the delay. The Minister will be well aware that, under the Local Government Act 2000, it is anticipated that, by

the end of June, local councils will have to submit detailed proposals on their new ways of working. Given the difficulties that many councils face, not only with foot and mouth but with the delayed elections, would it not be appropriate to extend that time?
I am absolutely delighted that the Home Secretary has accepted the principle that the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), was advocating yesterday and which others now support—that it would be absolutely inappropriate in the current circumstances to consider providing compensation to candidates. It would be totally wrong to provide compensation and small sums to them when so many other people are not only losing great sums and incurring huge expenses but losing their livelihoods.
I was disappointed, however, that the Home Secretary still seems to believe that it might be appropriate for independent candidates to receive compensation. A possible inference from such compensation is that the registered political parties should cover the expenses of their candidates. Very often, those expenses are paid out of pocket by the individual candidate, whether he or she is a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidate. I think that the same arrangement should apply to independent candidates and that no compensation for the delay should be given to any candidate. Nevertheless, I welcome the 50 per cent. increase in the election expense limit.
Liberal Democrat Members support the Bill in principle, although we hope that it will be amended as I have described. Nevertheless, as I said, we accept that the Prime Minister had a difficult decision to make and that the legislation must now be rapidly enacted. Subject to our support for those amendments, we shall certainly give the Bill our full support.

Mr. David Winnick: Deferment of the local elections is precisely what Opposition Members were demanding. Reference has already been made to the fact that, some time ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that the local elections should not be held now because of foot and mouth disease. Conservative Members are therefore hardly in a position to vote against Second Reading. Although I realise that they have said that they will not vote against it, in view of their consistent comments, they really could not vote against it.
We can imagine what Opposition Members would be saying if the elections had gone ahead on 3 May and, two days ago, the Prime Minister had announced a general election. They are concerned and afraid of a general election, not local elections, because of longstanding substantial Labour leads in the opinion polls. If the Prime Minister had said that there would be both local elections and a general election on 7 June, Conservative Members would have said that he was putting party before Government. Today, they would be throwing around that accusation rather debating as they are.

Mr. Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the very simple distinction between an election whose date is fixed by statute—the local elections—and


the date for a general election, which is entirely at the whim of the Prime Minister and does not have to be called for at least another year?

Mr. Winnick: I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said about another year, but I was here in the 1980s—

Mr. Bercow: When there was no foot and mouth.

Mr. Winnick: Both 1983 and 1987 were years in which elections were held before their time, and not one Conservative Member argued then that there should not be a general election. I doubt whether it would have been any different if there had been a foot and mouth outbreak. Labour Members did not welcome a general election on either of those dates, but we never argued that the then Prime Minister should not call one. The decision was up to her.
If circumstances were different and Conservative Members were generally confident that they could win a general election, they would not ask for a deferment of the local elections. On the contrary: they would say that democracy must go ahead. They would argue that the Prime Minister had no reason to alter the previously fixed date for the election and they would urge that the general election take place.
Before foot and mouth came on the scene, there was no demand from the Opposition regarding the general election. That is why I argue that Conservative Members are terrified of a general election and that they will use any excuse to defer it for as long as possible until the five years of this Parliament are up.

Mr. Gapes: Does my hon. Friend recall that, at the height of last September's fuel protests, the Leader of the Opposition at one point—when the opinion polls temporarily indicated an improvement in the Conservative party's performance—called for an immediate general election? Is it not interesting that that call should have disappeared?

Mr. Winnick: I remember that very well. What my hon. Friend says strengthens my point.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: In a moment. If there were any possibility that the Conservative party might win a general election instead of suffering another humiliation, there would be no question of deferring any election, national or local.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is not about a general election. It is about the deferment of the local elections.

Mr. Winnick: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

Mr. Hawkins: Given that, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has just pointed out, we are discussing the deferment of the

local elections, is not the hon. Gentleman's argument torpedoed by the fact that all political commentators in all newspapers predict sweeping Labour losses in the local elections?

Mr. Winnick: The Tories fear the general election, not the local elections. I accept what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course. I shall simply repeat that the Tory party is demonstrating, beyond any doubt, its hypocrisy and opportunism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, Conservative Members were only too willing for a general election to be held last year, when there was the slight possibility that they might win. They have exhibited utter hypocrisy about deferring the general election. Of course they do not want it on 7 June. They want it deferred, if possible to next year. We understand their reasons very well.

Mr. David Trimble: I hope to produce the shortest speech in the debate so far, as I have just a few points to make about the Bill.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, we are dealing with the postponement of the local government elections. However, there is a background to the debate, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). We all know what that background is.
I think that the Prime Minister was right to decide not to go to the country on 3 May. It would have been feasible to do so, but would it have been wise? The foot and mouth epidemic is a serious crisis, and to have proceeded with the election would have appeared insensitive to the problems being experienced by people in many parts of the country.
There is widespread speculation that the Prime Minister hopes to hold the election on 7 June, rather than 3 May. Either date would mean that the general election would be held within two or three weeks of local government elections in Northern Ireland. That would not be desirable.
It has happened twice before—in 1997, and on an earlier occasion—that local elections in Northern Ireland and a general election have been held close together. It is not a good idea to have two such elections within a few weeks of each other. In 1997, the local government elections were held just over two weeks after the general election, and turnout suffered significantly.
The Liberal Democrat party has argued that it would not be a good idea to have the general election and the local government elections in Northern Ireland on the same day. I suspect that that argument was being advanced on behalf of the Alliance party, which does not want a large election turnout. It hopes to slip some candidates into office on an indifferent turnout.
I welcome elections, and the more people who vote in them, the better. When two elections come close together, the sensible and commonsense response is to hold them on the same day. That is what the Bill will achieve. Consequently, I think that it is right in principle.
Unfortunately, however, the Bill has been introduced very quickly. We understand the reasons for that, but a number of technical matters have to be considered. One of the disadvantages of the present arrangements is that they will not allow sufficient time to look at those matters. It is a bad mistake by the Government not to provide more time.
A significant number of hon. Members have much knowledge, practical experience and expertise when it comes to elections. If any group of people is fit to consider the details of election, it is the Members of this House. I wholly disagree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase in that regard. Members of Parliament are elected to safeguard the public interest, and the suggestion that unelected people would be better guardians of the public interest is objectionable as a matter of principle. However, I shall not pursue that further.
It is a pity that we do not have more time to look at the details. If all points cannot be dealt with tonight, the Government must ensure that they are pursued in another place.
Finally, I want to make one general point. There are a lot of elections in the United Kingdom now—for Parliament, local government, the regional Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and for Europe. Various terms and dates govern those institutions. It would be worth giving serious consideration to the election timetable, and to the interaction between elections.
In addition, it would be worth while to give serious consideration to the state of the statute book on elections, which is in a mess. What we are doing today is likely to add to that mess. There is a serious need, therefore, to look at electoral law in the United Kingdom as a whole, with a view to producing a simple, consolidated Act to deal with the matter. At present, it is very difficult to know precisely what the law is.
I have made clear my points of principle, so I shall bring my speech to an end, thus achieving the feat of sitting back down on the Bench before my name appears on the annunciator screen.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and to say that I agree strongly with most of what he said, and especially with his last point. We need to look at the election statute book relatively soon. The matter is complicated, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I represent a London constituency, and there are no elections in London this year. However, the capital has its own electoral cycle, with borough elections every four years, followed every two years by elections for the Mayor and Assembly. It is a complicated arrangement.
I want to raise a more difficult question. I understand why the decision to defer has been taken, but I am a London MP, and the only wildlife in my constituency consists of urban foxes or the escaped rabbits that the foxes eat. There are no farms in my area, and life there has not been affected by foot and mouth in any way at all. That is true for the vast majority of people, parliamentary constituencies and local authorities in the UK. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have taken the decision because a significant minority of the country is badly affected by the crisis.
The decision to postpone elections is a serious matter. I do not want to have to do it again. Sometimes, democracy has to be conducted in difficult circumstances. I was an observer with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation at the elections for the Russian Duma on 19 December 1999. I was in a place called Barnaul in western Siberia. The temperature on polling day was minus 27 deg. They had something there which we do not

have but might consider for future elections—a mobile ballot box. It is put on a heavy vehicle with chains and big wheels and goes to the most remote farms. People who are lying in their sick bed, have bronchitis or have difficulty in walking are able to participate in an election with the assistance of that device, even in those very harsh climatic conditions.
We do not have extremes of climate. We have postal votes, and our systems of mass communication are much more sophisticated. So the arguments for deferral must be carefully weighed. I do not support any move for an indefinite deferral. It causes many problems for local government and it sends the signal that democracy in local government and society is not important.
I am afraid that I disagree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I do not believe that the judiciary, or some collection of the great and the good from academia, should determine how our political system should function. We must take responsibility for making the decisions, and we should suffer the consequences if we make the wrong ones. It is a cop-out for democratic politicians to say that these decisions are nothing to do with us and that others will decide on our behalf. That is not why I am in politics, and I do not think that Members of this House should, if they think about it, take that approach either.
I referred in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to the views expressed by the putative Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, last September. I have drawn attention to that in early-day motion 488. The Conservative party is playing a very opportunistic game, and it is bizarre. On the one hand, Conservative Members call for an early general election; on the other, they want the indefinite postponement of local elections and presumably take the view that the general election should be put off as long as possible. That was not the view taken by Margaret Thatcher in 1983, after four years of a Parliament, or in 1987, after four years of a Parliament. It was not the view taken by Harold Wilson in 1970, although he got it wrong. He was ahead in the polls, but he lost. In our society, Governments that are popular and have a large majority go to the country early. That is a basic rule. Governments that are unpopular and in trouble hang on until the end.
I should like to conclude with a little anecdote.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes: Not at the moment. I should like to tell my story.
I worked at Labour party headquarters in the 1970s. In 1978, I was the national organiser for Labour students. I was at a National Union of Students training conference at Nottingham university in September 1978 when I received a telephone call from Transport house saying that I should return to London for a meeting at No. 10 Downing street the following morning at 10 am. I was told not to tell anybody, so I assumed that the then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, was going to announce the election that day and that he would go on television to address the nation.
All the students piled into the television room at Nottingham university, waiting for the announcement. I knew that it would definitely happen because I had been told to come back to London the next morning.


The Prime Minister came on the television and said that there was no election, he was carrying on and he had a job to do. I spent the next 40 minutes frantically trying to find someone to speak to who could confirm whether the meeting was on, because I had to get the train to London that night. No one was available.
I got the train to London, went to my office where I saw a big notice on my desk saying "Sorry. Meeting cancelled." The general secretary of the Labour party, Ron Hayward, had phoned all the people who were out of London to get them back because he was convinced, in September 1978, that the general election would be called by the Prime Minister.
That shows how personal the decision is. It indicates to me that it is a very difficult decision. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is wrong. We do not know when the general election will be, because none of us is privy to the Prime Minister's thoughts on the day that he makes that decision. It is a personal decision that he will make. None of us can assume that the election will be held on any particular date in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put me in a dilemma. I thought that I could not rob the House of his punch line, but I must now remind him that this is an embroidery well beyond the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Gapes: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I therefore conclude my remarks.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I always wondered how they had invented the spin doctor, and now I know. If that was the father of spin doctors, no wonder they wanted to get away.
I happen to agree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I believe in fixed-term Parliaments. Every other body in this country is elected on a fixed-term basis, and it would be sensible if the Government were as well. However, as you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not what we are discussing.
We are discussing the date of the county council elections. I called for them to be postponed even before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made that call. I believed that it was the right thing to do because, as a Member representing a constituency that has foot and mouth, I see at first hand the real agony and anguish that this terrible disease is causing in the rural community. It was right and proper for the Prime Minister to take the decision that he did, and it is right and proper that Parliament should pass this legislation. I deeply regret the way in which it is being rushed through, however, because it contains issues of substance and there are amendments to it on the Order Paper.
I rose to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, only because it looks as though we shall not have the privilege of addressing you as Sir Alan later on, because the proceedings on Second Reading and the remaining stages must be concluded by 9 o'clock. As there are winding-up speeches to be made from the Front Benches, it seems that we will not have a chance to discuss the amendments.
For me, one issue above all is of substance. That concerns the date. If the Prime Minister was rightly concerned last week that the epidemic was not under

control, I do not for the life of me understand how he can be confident of knowing by 10 or 14 May—which I believe is the very latest date for another postponement—that 7 June will be a clear day. That is why I strongly support the move, and I tabled an amendment to that effect, which was selected, to give ourselves the opportunity by affirmative resolution to come to both Houses of Parliament and defer the date again to another date perhaps in June, or perhaps to defer the date in certain parts of the country. I readily accept that it may be appropriate to have county council elections on 7 June in Lincolnshire whereas, sadly, it may not be appropriate to have them in Staffordshire and it almost certainly would not be appropriate in Cumbria or Devon.
The fundamental mistake that the Government have made in drafting the Bill is not to have allowed themselves and the House flexibility—an escape clause so that they could change the date without having to go through the rigmarole of primary legislation yet again. If we had incorporated a provision such as that outlined in my amendment or that tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, we would have built flexibility into the measure.
We are denying ourselves, those whom we represent, and those whom the county councillors will represent a real opportunity. Sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not hear the admirable brief speech made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He said that the Prime Minister was clearly seeking to orchestrate two elections on one day. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it plain from the Front Bench that Conservative Members were not apprehensive about the results of the county council elections. We are most anxious to have them. All the pundits predict that they are likely to result in significant gains for my party. We look forward to that enormously. It is because the Prime Minister knows that and does not want to go to the country in a general election against that background that he is trying to put the two elections on one day. In advancing the argument for fixed terms, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase hit the nail on the head. He is right.
Others wish to speak, so I will not say any more save to appeal even at this late stage to the Minister. The Bill has to go to another place so, although there will not be a Committee stage in this House this evening, perhaps there will be one in another place. I urge the Minister to amend the Bill to reflect the spirit of my amendment and that tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. That would give flexibility to Government and Parliament to move the election date if sadly, this terrible disease is still ravaging the countryside.
Those of us who went today to the presentation arranged by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and listened to the experts know that the disease is not under control yet. I devoutly hope that it will be on 7 June, but I have real doubts. So I say to the Minister, please, please, heed these pleas and put some flexibility into the Bill before it reaches the statute book.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be extremely brief. I warmly welcome the Bill in principle, although I have some concerns about it. Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe that there is a need to put the Bill through quickly because we have a statutory duty,


if the local elections are to be postponed, to specify the new date on which the local elections are to be held. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I believe that the House has a duty and a responsibility to specify another date when they are to be held. To leave it open would be unconstitutional and most unsatisfactory.
I have to say to the Minister, and perhaps here I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, that I am not sure that 7 June is right. However, we clearly need to specify another date. I was at the briefing session to which my hon. Friend referred. It is clear that the daily number of cases of foot and mouth could peak in the second half of the local authority election campaign and perhaps even that of the general election campaign. If the Government's chief scientific adviser is to be heeded, in the worst scenario the number of cases could peak at more than 400 cases a day around 21 May. That clearly causes concern.
I want to ask specific questions. The Minister will be aware that I said earlier that in my area at least one parochial church council—Eaton council in the south of my constituency—had said that it was not prepared to make the church hall available as a polling station in the immediate future because it had concerns about the countryside, farming and the foot and mouth crisis.
My local authority will incur additional expenditure in administering the election. Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), assure me that local authorities will be properly reimbursed for necessary, additional expenditure incurred in carrying out our democratic procedures for local elections? At this stage, I make no reference to a general election that may or may not also be held on 7 June.
I am also concerned that, in many areas of my constituency, farmers will not be able to get off their farms and candidates will be unable to canvas and to introduce themselves to farmers. As several new candidates are standing for Cheshire county council in my area, how are electors to know all the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote? Serious consideration should be given to allowing one free postal delivery for county council election candidates—if not to the country at large, at least to those parts of the countryside where severe restrictions and exclusion areas will prevent the operation of the normal democratic process.
I feel deeply concerned about that matter. I myself cannot call on many of my farmers at present, because I do not want to risk spreading that dreadful virus—the foot and mouth disease that affects so much of our countryside. Although many people may say, "The countryside is open", I point out to Ministers who highlight that fact and have recently used that expression time and again, that many people who have direct or indirect association with the farming community—especially the livestock farming community—do not want visitors to the countryside, irrespective of the losses that may be sustained both for that community and allied industries and businesses.
The Government have a unique opportunity to show good sense and a full understanding of the problems experienced in the countryside due to the foot and mouth restrictions. If the Minister could at least give an indication that the Government might consider making provision in the measure for a free postal delivery for

local election candidates—especially in areas affected by foot and mouth—I should be delighted. From the Government's point of view, that would show a true understanding of democracy and of the need for everyone to have the opportunity not only to know their local authority candidate, but to go out and vote on polling day.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am inclined to accept the Prime Minister's judgment on delaying the local government elections in England and Wales. That is all the more relevant because—as it had clearly been the right hon. Gentleman's intention to hold on the same day the local government elections and the general election, for which polls showed that he was significantly ahead—such a delay might have been considered something of a sacrifice. However, I oppose the proposition that the local government elections in Northern Ireland should be linked to that delay. Those elections were to be held not on 3 May, but on 16 May.
I was surprised to read the element of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. When the Prime Minister made his announcement and was interviewed outside No. 10 Downing street, he was immediately asked by Ken Reid of Ulster Television about the possible implications for Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister replied that, because Northern Ireland was in the second category—namely, that there had been an incident of foot and mouth, but no reoccurrence—it was important to return to normality as quickly as possible. One might have concluded, therefore, that normality would involve going ahead with what was normal—an election on 16 May. Having listened during this debate and the previous one, I have heard nothing from those on the Government Front Bench that would support their decision to postpone the election in Northern Ireland until 7 June.
Foot and mouth disease is not the reason for the postponement. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is inaccurate in saying that there is a low level of the disease in Northern Ireland. There is no foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland. There was one incident of a republican smuggler who tried to make money on the side and caused havoc around the border in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, but there has been no recurrence. Indeed, the Government successfully argued in Europe that there was no foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland, so let us remove that from the possible reasons why they have taken this decision.
Of course the Government might argue, although they cannot do so publicly, that they want the postponement because they did not want to have two elections on 7 June, given the likelihood of a general election. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, that has happened on several occasions in the past, with higher turnouts than normal in Great Britain, even if the elections were not on the same day. So the Government cannot use that argument.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann say that he looks forward to elections, because he has been trying to ban the local government elections in Northern Ireland. He has said that they should be put off altogether and that there should be a review of local government for a year or two before holding them. However, he comes to the House and has the audacity to say that he wants to hold elections and is


looking forward to them. Well, I am looking forward to the elections in Northern Ireland and, irrespective of whether they are held on 16 May or 7 June, the people are looking forward to the opportunity to speak at the ballot box.
On the Minister's response, it is fully clear that the Bill has been introduced for a political purpose. The Government believe—wrongly, I think—that it will be a boost to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and to the Social Democratic and Labour party, but they will, in effect, ensure that the local government elections in Northern Ireland will be overshadowed by the issues relevant to the Westminster election. Therefore, people will come out for the local government election, as well as for the Westminster election, to deal with the key issue in Northern Ireland—the Belfast agreement—and on that argument, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will undoubtedly lose.
Clearly, we shall have no opportunity to speak in Committee, so let me say that I should have been interested to find out from those on the Government Front Bench why on earth they have included subsections 2(2) and 2(3). Nomination day in Northern Ireland would not have taken place until the end of April or the beginning of May, by which time the Bill will be law, so no one can be nominated and, therefore, subsections 2(2) and 2(3) are superfluous. The matters that concern my colleagues and me greatly are those that relate to the schedule.

Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman not noticed that the only possible reason for those provisions is that the Bill will become permanent legislation? It will not die, so it can be applied if a similar situation ever exists in future, and I believe that it will not be very good legislation.

Mr. Robinson: If that is the case it is very sad indeed. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann did not tell the House that the very good reason for not holding a local government election and a Westminster election on the same day in Northern Ireland is that there are two different electoral systems. That will cause untold confusion at the polling stations, especially for elderly people. On one hand, people will have to vote with a cross in the Westminster election and, on the other, they will have to select their first, second or third choice and beyond in the local government elections. There will undoubtedly be significantly more spoiled votes as a result of holding a dual election for Westminster and local government. So I hope that these provisions will not be used in the future, although the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) may well be right about the Government's intention.
I particularly ask the Government to reconsider the leeway that they will give to returning officers under new rule 46A. They want to let the returning officer determine whether to open the ballot boxes in either the local government or Westminster elections and remove the stray ballot papers from the other election. That should not be left to the judgment of returning officers; they should be required to do that. However, under the new rule, they simply "may" do that. That is not good enough, particularly in a local government election under proportional representation when two fifths of a vote have, in the past,

made the difference between one candidate and another being elected. In addition, a handful of votes could decide a Westminster seat, so such flexibility should not be built into the Bill.
I wish to allow those on the Front Benches the opportunity to wind up but, finally, may I express my concern that the oversight that counting agents should be entitled to have over the opening of ballot boxes is not a requirement under the Bill. Indeed, in a hole in the corner, someone might be able to open up the ballot boxes and tamper with their contents. Oversight should be permitted and counting agents should be allowed—arrangements should be made for this—to see the opening of the ballot boxes. That is essential, and returning officers should be given instructions to ensure that that happens.
Although the inclination of my colleagues and I would have been to vote against the Bill's Second Reading because we are opposed to those elements of it that relate to Northern Ireland, we are prepared to forgo that opportunity rather than take up the further time that such a Division would cause.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Because of the ridiculously short time allowed by the guillotine and the fact that we want the Minister to answer some of the important questions that have been raised on Second Reading, I shall be extremely brief. I will not have the opportunity to comment in any detail on a number of the interesting issues that have been raised. However, I repeat something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said in her opening remarks. When the Prime Minister weighs all the factors in the balance, as he said he would have to do in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 21 March, the Government will not be able to offer any certainty that the position on the terrible foot and mouth epidemic will be any better in June than in May.
My right hon. Friends Members for Maidstone and The Weald and for Richmond, Yorks have said that flexibility should be built into the Bill so that the date of local elections can be reconsidered depending on when the disease is genuinely under control. Four objective tests should also be applied.
First, the standard time between the report of a new case of the disease and the slaughter of the animals in question should be 24 hours or less. At present, we know that, sadly, the backlog of animals waiting to be slaughtered and waiting to be buried after slaughter is growing. The second objective test is that the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed. The Government cannot say with confidence that the position will be any better in June than in May. The third objective test is that movement restrictions should have been lifted from most farms, and the final test is that the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward, rather than upward as it tragically still is.
There is so much more that Opposition Members could say but, given the limitations on time and the fact that we must have answers from the Minister, I shall incorporate everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said in my conclusion. Her comments remain just as valid at the end of the debate as they were at the beginning.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for the brevity of his remarks. I hope that that will allow me to reply to many of the important points that have been raised in what has been a good debate. It raised serious questions, but I am grateful to hon. Members for their broad agreement that it would not be appropriate to hold elections in England and Wales, at least, on 3 May. I also thank Members in other parties for the support that they have offered for the proposal that we should defer the local elections until 7 June. I appreciate that there were concerns about those issues, some of which I hope to address.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised several significant matters. She mentioned that GCSE examinations take place in June, which might have implications if local government elections take place on 7 June. It is difficult to choose an election date because it always coincides with another event, such as factory holidays. The Conservatives faced that choice when they were in government and decided to hold elections in June 1983, June 1987 and June 1970. Each time, they had to take account of the fact that examinations were being conducted in schools.
We are certain that acting returning officers showed admirable flexibility on those occasions and will do so again. They have the resources and ability to prepare for elections, and can ensure that locations for polling stations do not interfere with the ability of young people to take their examinations. I am sure that acting returning officers will put contingency plans into effect as the need arises. Examinations are often staged in only part of a school's premises and it may well be possible for the polling station to be moved to a different area in the school. The issue is important. We have considered it and believe that we can rely on acting returning officers to deal with the problem.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised the issue of free mailshots, to which we gave careful consideration. If I may spare the hon. Gentleman's blushes, he made a statesmanlike speech. The difficulty, is that if we have mailshots in areas that are affected by foot and mouth, it will be incumbent on us to provide the same facility to other people across the country. Different issues arise at different times in different places. It would be difficult to say that the circumstances are so unique that free mailshots should be given in one area rather than another. We would have to consider giving the facility to all candidates and people would ask why, if we could do it this year, we could not do it next year. We need a longer time scale in which to consider free mailshots, although I realise that the hon. Gentleman presents a problem that we face now.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said—perhaps she should consult Hansard on this—that some areas are not having post delivered and they should have free mailshots, which slightly defeats the point. I think she meant that there are difficulties in delivering post in some areas because it cannot be taken to the door. However, farms are making alternative arrangements—such as providing a facility at the end of the driveway—to collect their post. By and large, mail is being delivered, so it is possible for someone to take a leaflet to those

places without going across a restricted area. Having considered circumstances in my constituency, I think that it would be possible to hand-deliver leaflets. If the expenses are raised as the Government propose, there is a facility for some mailshots to be sent by post by the candidate of a person's choice.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? Special consideration is being given to parts of the country during the foot and mouth crisis. I am sure that an exception could also be made for postal deliveries.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have considered that carefully and I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will give it further consideration. I heard what he said; the Government always try to listen on such issues. However, we have considered the matter carefully and I think that we have a settled position.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised a number of issues. First, on meetings of police authorities, the power in clause 7 will allow us to make an order to postpone the date on which police authority annual meetings have to be held. I hope that that provides reassurance.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will but, given the limited time and the large number of questions that have been asked, it is the last time that I shall to do so.

Mr. Heath: While the hon. Gentleman is dealing with police authorities, will he confirm that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 specifies a four-year term for members of a police authority? Will that be dealt with in consequent legislation?

Mr. O'Brien: Indeed, that issue was raised in our debate, and I am coming on to it. The period for which councillors and others are elected depends on the re-election of others. The fact that we are postponing the elections enables councillors to retain their position; we are advised in law that that is the case and we will be safe to continue to allow councillors and members of police authorities and other organisations to retain their position as councillors for the month between 3 May and 7 June, so that the election can take place. If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants me to write to him and set out the details, I am happy to do so—[Interruption.] I will do the same for his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
I was asked about the updating of electoral registers. That is a significant issue which we are still examining. It is outside the scope of the Bill, but we shall consider the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The hon. Member for Macclesfield asked whether the Bill allows for compensation to be paid in cases in which churches cannot be used. Compensation will be paid to local authorities for the additional expenditure incurred as a result of the postponement of


the local elections; we will have to provide guidance on the detail of that, and I hope that it will deal with the sort of points made by the hon. Gentleman. Compensation would not be used in relation to churches; it would be available for local authorities regarding the extra costs that they incur.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for supporting the Bill and the decision to postpone local elections. He proposed a single consolidated Bill to deal with all elections; that is an interesting thought on which I shall reflect. I am also grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Bath, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. He asked a number of questions, the first of which was a request for more information on local government elections in Northern Ireland. I can provide reassurances in addition to those provided by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Returning officers are experienced in operating more than one election on the same day, as happened in 1997, so, even if a general election were called to coincide with local elections, we are confident that electoral officers will run fair polls and, as we heard earlier, that the electorate will cast separate votes at the same time.
I was asked who will verify the ballot boxes if—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister instruct the House accurately? He has just quoted an incident and said that two elections took place in one day. That is not true at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. O'Brien: I heard what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, and I will check—[Interruption.] I am briefed that that occurred, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told me that the briefing may have been inaccurate, so the hon. Gentleman may well be right. May I check and write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the matter?
Time is running out for me to deal with other points made by hon. Members. The points raised were important. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that we do not need certainty: we do need certainty about the date of the local government elections. I agree entirely with his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield that Parliament has said in the past that it requires certainty. That is why we have a specific date—

It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

ELECTIONS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;
(b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the Secretary of State's expenditure under any provision of the Act relating to compensation.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

It being after Nine o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Questions necessary for the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 3

COMBINATION OF POLLS

Amendment made: No. 21, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, leave out first "(1)" and insert "(1A)".—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Schedule

NORTHERN IRELAND: MODIFICATION OF ELECTION PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 7, line 36, leave out—
'Schedule 1 to the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001)'
and insert—
'the Schedule to the Elections Act 2001)'.
No. 23, in page 11, line 7, leave out—
'Schedule 1 to the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 2001)'
and insert—
'the Schedule to the Elections Act 2001)'—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

As amended in tire Committee, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now move to Report stage. Mr. Speaker has arranged for a paper to be available in the Vote Office and it is being circulated. A number of manuscript amendments have been tabled for Report. Copies of the amendments and Mr. Speaker's provisional selection are available, as I mentioned, in the Vote Office and around the Chamber. For the convenience of hon. Members, the numbering refers also to the numbering of amendments on the Committee amendment paper.

New Clause 1

FURTHER POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS UNTIL FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE UNDER CONTROL

'(2A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint a day later than 7th June 2001 to which the elections mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) are to be postponed


if he is satisfied that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is not under control in a particular local authority area; and different days may be appointed for different local authority areas.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is "under control" when:

(a) the standard time between the report of a new case of the disease and the slaughter of the animals in question is 24 hours or less; and
(b) the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed; and
(c) movement restrictions have been lifted from most farms; and
(d) the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward.

(2C) An order made under subsection (2A) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.

(2D) An order made under subsection (2A) may include such consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and in particular may include provision for the postponement of a local government election to fill a casual vacancy which falls to be held after 7th June 2001 but before the day appointed in the order.'.

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at beginning insert—
'Subject to section [Further postponement of elections until foot and mouth disease under control],'.
No. 2, in page 1, line 6, at beginning insert
'Subject to section [Further postponement of elections until foot and mouth disease under control],'.

Mr. Hawkins: New clause 1 has been deliberately drafted in as similar a form as possible to amendment No. 13, which was not reached in Committee. That further reinforces the argument that the guillotine imposed by the Government was ridiculously short. We did not debate any of the 50 amendments in Committee, and there were still hon. Members who wanted to speak on Second Reading when the wind-up speeches started, despite attempts by right hon. and hon. Members to be brief.
Our new clause suggests that the Secretary of State should by order made by statutory instrument appoint a day later than 7 June 2001 to which the elections mentioned in clauses 1(1) and 1(2) are to be postponed if he is satisfied that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease is not under control in a particular local authority area. Different days may be appointed for different local authority areas.
As I said in my wind-up speech on Second Reading, our view is that there should be four objective tests by which it could be established whether the terrible disease is genuinely under control. We all remember that the Minister of Agriculture suggested that the disease was under control at a very early stage, but he was patently misleading the country. It soon became clear that he had to apologise to all farmers and citizens for making those comments.
The Opposition suggest that four objective tests should be satisfied before a decision can be made. Those tests are set out in subsection (2) of the new clause. First proposed subsection (2)(a) would require that
the standard time between the report of a new case of the disease and the slaughter of the animals in question is 24 hours or less".
Sadly, as we have heard, hundreds of thousands of animals are not being slaughtered in time. Often, even those that are slaughtered are not buried in time.
Secondly, the new clause proposes that a decision on elections should be made only if
the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed".
Unfortunately, we know that the geographical spread is getting wider. Thirdly, the new clause would require that
movement restrictions have been lifted from most farms".
That condition is certainly far from being fulfilled at the moment, and there is little or no prospect that it will be more likely to be fulfilled in June than at the beginning of May. The fourth proposed test is that
the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward.
In addition to those provisions, the new clause suggests that the Bill should allow the making of orders that
may include such consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and in particular may include provision for the postponement of a local government election to fill a casual vacancy which falls to be held after 7th June 2001".

Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a by-election was called in Carlisle after foot and mouth disease was discovered in Cumbria? The Conservative candidate in the election is the agent of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

Mr. Hawkins: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is sensitive about the prospect of further political losses in his constituency. Of course, he represents a city constituency in which, as I recall it, his party made sweeping losses and mine made sweeping gains.
However, we are debating serious proposals that would provide the flexibility that is needed. We know that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister can say with confidence that the position on foot and mouth will be any better in early June than in early May. That is why the new clause is so vital. We believe that the Bill should provide the flexibility for the Government to think again.
I know that many hon. Members wanted to speak on Second Reading about the postponement period, but were unable to do so. As this debate is also subject to a ridiculously short guillotine, it is incumbent upon me to be brief. We want a number of questions to be answered, but I anticipate that other hon. Members will want to speak about the new clause and amendments, so I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I want briefly to comment on the new clause, which goes to the heart of the argument about flexibility that featured during our Second Reading debate. I hope that in doing so the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is not in his place, will not regard me as a craven lickspittle, which was the phrase he used when we were discussing the allocation of time motion a little earlier today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said on Second Reading, postponement of fixed-term elections is a serious matter that should be contemplated only in very serious circumstances. I think that there is consensus throughout the House that foot and mouth constitutes such a circumstance, especially in some parts of the country. I am afraid, however, that I cannot support the new clause for two reasons.
First, there has to be a balance of judgment about the degree of delay. Although it is proper for consideration to be given to the problems that are created by foot and mouth, there is an argument about normality. One of the powerful cases made by the Opposition in debates and on statements about foot and mouth recently is about the need to return a sense of normality to the rest of the country, particularly for the tourism industry. It is reasonable to weigh up the balance between the problems that foot and mouth creates and the need for normality, given that we are taking a serious step in proposing to postpone fixed-term elections.
The second issue is one of principle, and it is my real objection to the new clause. If we are to defer fixed-term elections, there should be absolute certainty about the date to which we propose to postpone them. I do not think that we should pass legislation that makes it easier for any Government, even one whom I support, to return to the House and say that they wish to postpone the elections further.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only reason for our tabling the new clause is that the Government have chosen 7 June, a perilously close date on which it is likely, on all predictions, that the foot and mouth epidemic will still be at its height? If the Government had chosen a significantly later date, the hon. Gentleman would not need to make this speech.

Mr. Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but this is a question of judgment and I think that it is reasonable to delay the elections until 7 June. We are debating the new clause, however, and the problem is that it would mean that if the Government could argue that the four objective tests on foot and mouth disease—with great respect, I must say that some of them are rather subjective—had not been met, they would have the power to postpone the local government elections until any date they cared to name, with no end date. That cannot be right, and for that reason the House should not support the new clause.

Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would go further and say that it is vital for democracy that there be a clear date for the elections and that it should not be long after the original date of 3 May. As I said earlier, consideration of any further delay should take place only in an extreme case.
There are two other reasons why the new clause should not be accepted. It allows for the possibility of different election dates in different parts of the country. Elections might be delayed in some council areas but go ahead in others, and that would lead to many problems. It would significantly erode the democratic principle. People in areas where elections were delayed would know what had

happened in elections in other parts of the country. That raises all sorts of questions about the national campaigning that takes place during local elections impacting on some parts of the country but not on others.
The new clause is based on a spurious attempt to suggest that there are clear, objective criteria for defining when foot and mouth disease is under control in a particular and, in some cases, small area. Four standards are proposed. Do hen. Members believe that in some of the relatively small council areas that we are talking about it would be possible to make a clear, objective judgment about whether, for example, the geographical spread of the disease had been reversed in that area?
The new clause smacks of a Conservative party that is concerned about the success of candidates in a particular area. Some Tories may try to argue that the disease has not been reversed in their council area, whereas others who expect to do well will suggest that it has been reversed. I do not believe that there can be clearly defined, objective criteria on when the outbreak is under control. Such criteria could possibly be provided on a nationwide basis, although I have reservations about that, but I do not believe that that could be defined for small areas. We need a clear and specified date that is relatively soon.

Mr. Waterson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman seems to share the Prime Minister's obsession with 7 June as a date for the elections. How bad would circumstances have to be for his party to argue in due course that the 7 June date is inappropriate?

Mr. Foster: I have already made it clear that I believe that the Prime Minister made the right decision to defer the timing of the election for a short period. The foot and mouth outbreak would have to be significantly worse than predicted, and worse than it is likely to be, before I would even remotely contemplate supporting a further delay. The democratic process is vital. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, if we continued to delay week after week and month after month, we would create uncertainty and it would send out a clear signal that this country was closed for business. That would have a serious impact on small businesses and the tourism industry, about which many people are concerned.
For the three reasons I have given, I hope that the House will reject the amendment, and that we will still have some time for a Third Reading debate. That will enable the Minister to answer the many points that have been put to him, but to which he has not had time to reply.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I want to put the point of view from my constituency. It is a huge rural constituency in Scotland, and is one of the 10 largest—it is more than 600 square miles. I well understand the reason for this legislation, and the dilemma that the Government and the Prime Minister were in last week. I did not envy him his task in making that decision, and I do not envy him having made it. I support his decision, because he made it in the national interest. He certainly made it in the interest of a huge rural constituency that contains a large farming community and an equally large tourist industry.
The decision was fine, and it had to be made. We had to strike a balance, and give priority to dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak while looking after the national interest, the general economy and the tourist industry in particular.
Having said that, now that we have had to change the date of the elections, and because there is an understanding, an inference or an assumption that there may also be a general election on 7 June, I believe that it was a missed opportunity to consider turnouts in general elections, which is of interest to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I could be accused of having a sell-interest in what I am about to propose. I tabled an amendment to move the date of the elections from 7 to 10 June. I had two reasons for doing that. First, it would enable us to see whether we could improve the turnout by having elections at weekends instead of mid-week. My second reason was out of self-interest. We have an honourable tradition in my constituency on the Thursday in June known as Lanark Lanimer day. That may sound like a local or constituency issue, but people come home to Lanark and Clydesdale from all over the world to attend the celebrations, and they have been cancelled on three or four occasions. They had to be postponed on 11 June 1987, the day on which I was elected, and that may happen again this time.

Mr. Tyler: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The last general election took place on 1 May, a date on which people from all over the world come to Padstow in my constituency for the "'obby 'oss" celebrations. On that occasion, we simply told everyone that their votes would count more if they reached the polling stations before 11 am, because after that time they might be—in one way or another—incapacitated. It worked like a dream: we had a 60 per cent. poll by 11 am.

Mr. Hood: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he supports my wish to protect Lanimer day in Lanark on 7 June, but I assure him that it is impossible to organise such a day in my constituency and deal with a general election at the same time.
I made that point from a constituency point of view. I strongly support the way in which the Government are dealing with the crisis in the rural communities. I hesitate to criticise our media, but let me issue a sincere and constructive criticism. The media are the first to tell politicians when we are talking down the national interest, and the first to lecture us in that regard. It is important for them to report the facts, but I have seen the same cows burn for three weeks on the same television station. I have seen the same pictures of corpses that were killed and disposed of three or four weeks ago. Throughout the media, an image is being presented that is far worse than the reality.
I believe that the Government are dealing with the situation as best they can, and that that is acceptable. Our media should be responsible: they should report the facts, but they should also support the Government's action in looking after the national economy and saving our rural communities and the tourism industry in those communities. If they do so, they will serve not only the democracy that we are discussing, but industry and the country.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my colleagues on new clause 1, although I do not think that

it is perfect. I am sure they will accept that, and also accept the argument of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) that it contains an element of open-endedness. It is always less than desirable for the House to place too much power in the hands of the Government of the day, especially this Government. I am looking at the Minister now. We know how well the Government can abuse the power that resides in their hands if we do not hold them to account.
Having said that, I still believe that my colleagues have done the House a service in drawing up, in a very short time, a detailed new clause that seeks to address the real problem we face. Although the Bill is designed to deal specifically with local elections, in my case the Hampshire county council elections, all Members of Parliament know—and, even if we are not prepared to acknowledge it, everyone outside the House knows—that what we are talking about is, potentially, the date of the next general election. There is no point in our deceiving ourselves in that regard.
I think that what we are doing by means of the new clause is helping the Government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to fulfil the commitment that they gave the country on Monday. We know that the whole country was geared up—certainly, the media and the party political machines were—for local elections on 3 May. We know that plans had been made for a general election, but there was grave disquiet in the country. If we as politicians had been seen to be putting ourselves first and failing to give 100 per cent, effort to the campaign to eradicate the tragic disease of foot and mouth, which is causing such misery and anguish in rural communities, the Government would have paid a heavy penalty at the polls, local and national. It was for that reason that the Prime Minister made a judgment, assisted by Mr. Trevor Kavanagh and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) no doubt, that such was the gravity of the situation in our rural communities that the local elections at least should be put off.
The point that I want to make is not a novel one; it has been made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government follow the logic of their argument, they have impaled themselves and boxed themselves into a corner—if I may mix my metaphors—by inserting 7 June in the Bill.
On Monday, the Home Secretary told us that there was a need, as the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) said, to keep the country open. The Home Secretary went on:
On the other side of the equation, however, is the need for national and, in some areas, local politicians to be focused on the fight against foot and mouth disease as the necessary machinery to deal with any eventuality is put in place; and the feelings and sensitivities of people in the communities most severely affected by that dreadful disease."—[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 21.]
By the mechanism of the new clause, my right hon. and hon. Friends have provided four objective tests. I submit that those tests are a darn sight more objective than the five economic tests that the Government have set up as Aunt Sallies for the scrapping of the pound, and they are four reasonably objective tests. Clearly, they are not 100 per cent. watertight, but, if come the beginning or middle of May there is still no improvement in the terrible foot and mouth epidemic, how on earth can the


Government possibly proceed with local elections and—the subtext—the general election? The same conditions will apply that applied on Monday when the Prime Minister gave his presidential address outside No. 10 to tell the nation rather than the House that he was putting the national interest before party interest.
We are trying to help the Government because if there is no significant improvement, if the tests are not met come 4, 5, 8 or 14 May, the Prime Minister will be left marooned on a sandbank. He will have no get-out by which to postpone the elections on 7 June. Far from being in the interests of the Conservative party, the new clause offers the Government a way out. It certainly offers the Prime Minister—we know how resentful most of his Back Benchers are at his solo decision—a way out.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central identified the risk in the new clause. That is a risk that the Opposition are prepared to accept. We believe that it would be wrong to put party before country. We must put country first and not party. The duty of politicians is to focus our every endeavour on eradicating the disease. The Opposition have by the new clause provided a mechanism by which the Government can do that.
If the Government do not accept the new clause, and the epidemic does not relent, they will stand accused of having failed to listen to the arguments and to take advantage of a flexible mechanism by which they could have continued to bend every sinew to ensure that the disease was eradicated, rather than committing themselves irrevocably to holding a series of local elections, and indeed a general election, on 7 June.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), because the debate is in part about something dear to his heart: the constitutional nature of our political arrangements. The new clause would introduce a remarkable constitutional innovation: that the blisters around a sheep's mouth and the sores around a cattle hoof should determine whether democratic elections take place. I have searched Bagehot and the constitutional histories available in the Library, and nowhere is it stated that the condition of agricultural livestock should be the variable factor determining the movable feast of when elections take place.
The conditions in paragraphs (a) to (d) read as though they have been downloaded from an old MAFF website. We welcome the conditions that
the geographical spread of the disease has been reversed";
that
movement restrictions have been lifted from most farms";
and that
the trend in new cases of the disease is clearly downward".
We are perhaps less keen on the condition suggesting that opinion polls should show significant gains for the Conservative party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) put his finger on it when he said that it was a matter of political judgment. It is a tribute to the flexibility of our constitution that the Prime Minister could take the decision that he took and listen to the nation. Judging

from the parliamentary Labour party meeting this morning, he did so with pretty much the unanimous support of Labour Members of Parliament.
I asked some friends in the United States what it would take for any American election to be postponed or varied. Would it happen if "The X-Files" proved to be true; if aliens landed; or if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) became an American citizen? I asked them whether, if any such natural disaster befell the American people, elections would be suspended. They listened in complete incomprehension. We should take cognisance of the fact that, in putting off an election even for one month, we are probably alone in the democratic world.
I am certainly happy, at this time of night, when no one is taking a great deal of notice, to make the argument for fixed-term Parliaments, which would obviate completely the discussions that we have been having in the past few weeks.
Hon. Members will have heard the alarming news that a large number of tuberculosis cases have been reported at a school in Leicester, and that the local medical authorities talked of a virulent disease that could spread rapidly, even beyond the confines of the school. All animals with foot and mouth get better, and it poses no human health risk, so were I a Leicester parent, I would be asking why obsessive media attention has been concentrated in recent weeks on the fact that hundreds of thousands of our cows and sheep have caught a very nasty cold, with foot and mouth ulcers.
We have suspended elections and the House has been utterly pre-occupied with that, whereas I suspect that children and parents in Leicester are in very great fear. Their situation, however, has commanded not nearly the same attention as the elections have received from the gentlemen of the press in the Gallery and from Conservative Members.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is really rather an endearing specimen in the House in that he is almost invariably off message, despite the fact that he is on the payroll vote. When he is on message, however, it seems to be only by accident. Will he confirm that he is profoundly opposed to any postponement, as seems to be the subtext of his remarks today, and that even if the foot and mouth contagion dramatically worsened in the next four weeks, he would still want all elections to go ahead? That is the burden of the position that is being expressed by a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister.

Mr. MacShane: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, as always, is react my lips—or rather my speech in tomorrow's Hansard, where my meaning will be perfectly plain. He may like me to repeat what I have just said, but I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would not. Nevertheless, one of the pleasures of debating with the equally endearing hon. Gentleman is that, regardless of how often hon. Members tell him that one and one are two, he pops up and insists that they are one and a half or three or four or five, or that in any case it is all a European plot to take over the British arithmetic system. I therefore invite him to read tomorrow's Hansard.
The borough of Rotherham in which my constituency lies is 65 per cent, rural and there was great concern when,over the weekend, a foot and mouth case was reported.


Fortunately, however, it turned out to be a false alarm. Nevertheless, 283 sheep in one herd were slaughtered, to the great anger of the farmer, and a local country park was closed. I am talking to Rotherham borough council about reopening the park because I think that many of our municipal authorities have grossly over-reacted to the situation. At times they want to be a little more Whitehall than Whitehall and a little more jobsworth than jobsworth, but it is time that our countryside was reopened.
Earlier, in describing what I think he said was his 600 square mile constituency in Lanarkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydeidale (Mr. Hood) commented on whether people could vote. One matter that has received very little attention or publicity in this debate on when the general election might or might not be held is the quiet revolution that has occurred in democratic accessibility. The Government can be rightly proud of wiping away all the bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining a postal vote.
I do not know whether you vote any more, Mr. Speaker. I think that, constitutionally, you are still allowed to vote—although I know that you are now above such minor things as ballot boxes. Nevertheless, you, me, the Prime Minister, every hon. Member and every one of our voting citizens no longer has to go to a voting booth before 11 am or after 11 am—intoxicated by the rhetoric of Liberal Democrat candidates or otherwise—or wait until the evening to cast a vote. Now, every one of our citizens can apply for a postal vote without a cross-signature from a doctor or anyone else and cast a vote without going to a voting booth.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who has left the Chamber—is a great admirer of American elections, and I have had very profitable discussions with him about the American political system. In the state of Oregon, people can vote only by post. I think that, in due course, perhaps in new Labour's third or fourth term, we will be able to move to electronic voting and to cast our vote in many different ways. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham is interrupting again from a sedentary position, as is his wont. He will become a virtual Member of Parliament—small, perfectly formed, and for ever available on dot.com from Conservative central office.
I hope that there is no more cant from Conservative Members about shifting the election on 7 June off to the Greek calends. The people of this country accept that foot and mouth must be tackled. However, at the risk of making special pleading, I must tell the House that thousands of my constituents are steelworkers, and they face a bleak and miserable family future. The Conservatives utter not a word of sympathy or concern about them, and neither do their puppet masters in the press.
My steelworker constituents may ask themselves whether the constitution can be changed and elections postponed so that their needs can be considered and met. I tell them that that cannot be done. Winston Churchill went to Potsdam in May 1945 and came back a defeated Prime Minister. That great treaty was concluded by Clement Attlee, and in those days the British people—the voters of Rotherham and Buckingham—did not let a little thing like an unfinished world war stop an election.
We should have the election on 7 June. We need no more cant and excuses, nor any more cynical new clauses that are merely a way to delay matters in the interest of

one party. In the next term, or in the third or fourth Labour term, we should examine the idea of fixed-term Parliaments and the matter of making postal voting and other forms of voting more accessible.
No matter what disaster befalls our nation, our strength lies in holding elections and in being the world's oldest democracy. We should not put off people's right to vote when the time comes.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is an amiable cove, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) charitably christened him. He has a wonderful gift for verbal dexterity, as he can talk about nothing at inordinate length. However, I have never in my life heard so much codswallop spoken in 10 minutes.
The speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham would have been amusing and diverting had he not trivialised an extremely important matter. His reference to a herd of sheep summarised his notions and knowledge of the countryside. From now on, I shall think of him as the cows' shepherd—hut I will not be led by him. [Interruption.] If impertinence, discourtesy and lack of chivalry have been demonstrated, it was by the gesture that the hon. Gentleman just made, not by my joke. That is typical of the triviality with which we are dealing this evening.
The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned news of tuberculosis in Leicester. I had not heard that news, which is, of course, very serious. I am sure that all hon. Members take it seriously. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to try and develop an argument from that, and to make the extrapolation that foot and mouth was no more serious than a common cold.
I should like to take the hon. Member for Rotherham to my constituency, and introduce him to some of the people there who are suffering. I should like him to meet the farmer who rang yesterday to tell me that he had a very modest income of £14,000 a year, and that he got it in three tranches. He said that the first tranche came when he sold his spring lambs, the second when he sold cows at Christmas, and that the third came at harvest time when he sold produce from his fields. This year, my farmer will get nothing from his spring lambs. They do not have foot and mouth, but they cannot be moved or sold, so my farmer has no income; nor is he eligible for any help from the state.
9.45 pm
I rang up the Inland Revenue's famous hotline and was told that his case could not be dealt with until July. I would like to take the hon. Member for Rotherham to meet that farmer. I would like him to meet the farmer's four children and his wife. I would like him to meet some of the other people who are afflicted and distressed by this most terrible scourge.
I have a very high regard for the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), not least because my son stood in the Scottish parliamentary election in his constituency. He is a chivalrous gentleman, who is rightly admired by his constituents. That was quite apparent when we walked around the constituency. He has an understanding of both the urban and the rural communities.
The hon. Member for Rotherham should be thoroughly ashamed of himself: he should be cringing as I speak. All over this country, in Devon, Cumbria and Staffordshire—


where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) knows, there are 44 cases of foot and mouth—there are people whose lives' work is being burned before their eyes. There are people whose families do not know where the next bread will come from. There are people in rural communities whose businesses—some third, fourth or fifth generation—are collapsing.

Mr. MacShane: What about the election?

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is because there is some recognition of this plight that the Prime Minister—belatedly, I believe—came round to the view that it would be an insult to those people to go to the country with any sort of election on 3 May. The Prime Minister's decision is entirely right and has the wholehearted support of the Conservative party.

Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I should just like to develop this point and then perhaps I will.
I tabled an amendment in Committee that was very similar to this new clause. It could not be debated because there was not enough time, Mr. Speaker, and you know why. You were very kind and said that manuscript amendments could be accepted on Report, which is why we are having this debate now. We have tabled the amendments to tell the Prime Minister that we welcome what he has done but do not think that he has recognised quite what a crisis this is. He is saying that the disease is not under control so that we cannot go to the country, locally or nationally, on 3 May. We are simply asking how he can be so certain that the disease will be under control on 7 June.

Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Just a minute. If the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who made a brief but sensible speech, had said that we ought to have gone for a date in July or September, Conservative Members might well have been content with that. We are not worried about the results of the county council elections, because every poll predicts that we shall do extremely well. That is not what concerns us. However, we are extremely worried that the country may still, in whole or in part, be in the grip of this dreadful disease on 7 June. If so, it would be as improper to go to the country then as it would on 3 May.
We are seeking to build some flexibility into the Bill, so that, by affirmative resolution, Parliament can move a date either for the whole country or for those parts of the country in which the disease is still rampant.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share my suspicions that the Government are beginning to believe their own rhetoric? Is he aware that MAFF inspectors are saying to Members of Parliament—perhaps they are saying it to him, as they are certainly telling me—that they believe that the position in Staffordshire now is as it was in Cumbria three and a half to four weeks ago?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend has to say that. He is right: we are all worried

in Staffordshire. In one village in my constituency 10 days ago there were piles of dead and rotting sheep for three days, waiting to be disposed of in five or six fields. Some people were going to look at them, taking their dogs to look at them and doing all sorts of other macabre and stupid things. Yes, it does worry us.
I hope that the disease will be under control by 7 June. I hope that there will be no need for further movement of the election date, but anyone who attended the presentation that the Minister of Agriculture kindly arranged in the Grand Committee Room today must have come away feeling worried by some of the things that we heard. If those predictions are right, it would be grossly improper to go to the country.

Mr. Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that 7 June may be too soon, but if they feel that, would it not have been better for the Opposition to have tabled an amendment that named a single alternative date rather than an amendment that leaves it to the Government of the day to decide the date, which could be months or, technically, years ahead?

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman knows that it could not be years ahead. It could be the autumn—I do not know. We believe that it should be reasonably open ended because of the severity of the outbreak, which has now topped 1,000 cases.

Mr. Gapes: Was the hon. Gentleman in favour of an immediate general election last September, as called for by his leader, when my constituents were suffering from the effects of the blockades that were encouraged by the Opposition?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I was not in favour. I am on the record as not having been in favour of an election in February 1974 or June 1987. This is the one issue on which I agree this evening with the hon. Member for Rotherham. I personally believe in fixed-term Parliaments.
I am not in favour of setting in stone a date that may well be wholly unsuitable when the countryside is still bleeding. I finish where I began, with the hon. Member for Rotherham. I hope that he will look not just at the statistics but at the human misery behind those statistics. I hope that he will have real cause not to grin like an inane nonentity but to appreciate just what a crisis the countryside is in.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Foot and mouth disease is indeed harrowing for those farming areas that are directly affected. I represent a rural area, and yesterday animals were being culled in my area of Warwickshire. However, it is not just a local issue for those farming areas directly affected. It is a national problem. It is important that parliamentarians can come together to express support for those in the farming and tourism industries who are most directly affected. The Government have been careful in seeking to balance the need to ensure that Ministers and the Prime Minister can focus on foot and mouth disease and the need to ensure that people have a chance to vote for their local representatives. It is a serious matter to postpone elections.

Mr. Hawkins: In the light of what he has just said, responding with appropriate seriousness to the matter,


will the Minister take the opportunity publicly to dissociate himself from the disgraceful remarks made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)?

Mr. O'Brien: Hon. Members will have heard my expressions of concern about foot and mouth disease and can draw their own conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is someone who adds to debates in the House, is often controversial, and expresses views which others may not dare to express. That is what the people of Rotherham elect him to do—to speak out and say what he thinks. He does so with great care for the people of Rotherham. I commend him for speaking in that way, but I also have my own views which may not always agree with his.
We need to ensure that we treat these matters with care. Parliament indicated that it wanted certainty as to the date of local government elections; the legislation will set out that certainty.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way; we have limited time and I have a series of points to make. I have been generous in taking interventions on previous occasions.
Our judgment on the balance between the democratic right of people to vote for their local representatives and the need to recognise the concerns of the farming community especially, but also of the tourist industry, has led us to the conclusion that we need a postponement of the 3 May elections. I am pleased with the general support in the House for that.
We also believe that there is a need for certainty as to the date on which that election will take place. The amendments and new clauses all seek the same objective: to remove the fixed date till which the local elections have been deferred.
There are a number of reasons why it is not a good idea to leave that date open. First, we should carefully consider the interpretation that would be placed on the decision to delay indefinitely the local elections on people who may be considering visiting the United Kingdom from abroad, or indeed on our home-grown tourist industry. It is in the interests of every citizen—town arid country dwellers—and not least of those farmers who have diversified into other areas of business that rely on the tourist trade, that we restore confidence in our tourism as quickly as possible.
New clause 1, which would allow the elections to take place on different dates in different counties, is particularly unfortunate in that regard. Hon. Members should imagine the message that would go out to potential tourists from abroad: "You can go to Dorset, but not to Wiltshire which is still closed. Somerset will open next month." That would do nothing to restore confidence in this country as a destination.
Secondly, we must take into account the position of councillors who intend to stand down at the next election. Although it is reasonable to expect most of them to accept a short delay, it most certainly is not reasonable to expect them to continue in office with no idea of when their term of office will cease, leaving them unable to make plans for the future.

Of course, a councillor may resign his office at any time, and the Government are grateful in the expectation that most councillors will accept a short extension of their term of office—as envisaged in the Bill. However, it would be quite unfair to prevail on their good will, as an open-ended deferral of local elections would do.
The third reason relates to democracy. Given some of the past actions of the Conservatives in abolishing democratically elected local institutions, it is no surprise that democracy may not be at the forefront of their minds. However, it is not right for the political make-up of councils to be determined by the vagaries of carrying unfilled vacancies, so that local people have no idea when they can restore the council that they have chosen, or choose a different one. They will have no certainty as to the date when they could do that. That would be wrong. A councillor might die or retire; the balance of the council would change, contrary to the will of the electorate, but nothing could be done for a prolonged period—until all the conditions set out in the new clause were met. That is not the right way to proceed.
All the points that I have set out illustrate the importance of certainty as to when local elections will be held. Those hon. Members who have put their names to the proposal to postpone the elections until specific conditions for controlling and eradicating foot and mouth disease are met on an area-by-area basis are proposing a recipe for local government chaos. I make that point in sadness: Parliament would regularly have to turn its attention needlessly to when a local election could take place in a given locality. That is not a serious way to proceed.
Certainty is what Parliament called for in local elections; certainty is what our Bill will provide. I therefore ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause; or if they do press it to a Division, I would ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Hawkins: I have no intention of withdrawing the motion. We wish to press it to a Division because we feel extremely strongly that the new clause is needed, as it would introduce the required element of flexibility.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 336.

Division No. 179]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Arness, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gran, James


Blunt, Crispin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burns, Simon
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter






Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Fit Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe. Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Ross. William (E Lond'y)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
St Aubyn, Nick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpdon, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smyth Rev Martin (Belfast S>


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


Hora[...], John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Swayne, Desmond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Thompson, William


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Walter, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Waterson, Nigel


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wells, Bowen


Loughton, Tim
Whrttingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mates, Michael
Mr. James Gray and


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Mr. Peter Luff.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ainger, Nick
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)



Bradshaw, Ben


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ashton, Joe
Browne, Desmond


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Austin, John
Burden, Richard


Bailey, Adrian
Burgon, Colin


Banks, Tony
Burstow, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Beard, Nigel



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Casale, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Caton, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Cawsey, Ian


Best, Harold
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blackman, Liz
Chaytor, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clapham, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)



Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harvey, Nick



Healey, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heath, David (Somerfon & Frome)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tiy S)
Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Joyce, Eric


Doran, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Edwards, Huw
Kilfoyle, Peter


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Galloway, George
Lock, David


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gidley, Sandra



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCrea, Dr William


Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Golding, Mrs Llin
Macdonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hancock, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)






Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mitchell, Austin
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Norris, Dan
Stringer, Graham


Oaten, Mark
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Purchase, Ken
Tyler, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Wareing, Robert N


Rapson, Syd
Watts, David


Raynsford, Nick
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Willis, Phil


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wills, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Joan
Wood, Mike


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woodward, Shaun


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Worthington, Tony


Sanders, Adrian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Sawford, Phil
Wyatt, Derek


Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Election Publications Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short, one-purpose Bill has been introduced following representations by all three main political parties. The issue arose from discussions between the Conservative party and the Electoral Commission, which established that the Conservatives were concerned about the new legislation. The Conservative party discussed the issue with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and all three then made representations. The Bill is in response to their concerns.
The Bill postpones the operation of the new requirements relating to the imprint on election publications, which were introduced by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I emphasise that we are not repealing those new requirements, but simply delaying their commencement to assist political parties. The Bill is not about correcting defects in the 2000 Act.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to set out what the Bill does, I shall happily give way to him.
The Bill reverses what, in hindsight, may have been an overly rapid implementation of two provisions in the 2000 Act, given that political parties were not yet in a position in which they were prepared or able to comply with them. In those circumstances it is right that we listen to representations. From the start, we have said that we wanted to make progress on the legislation on the basis of consensus and consultation with political parties, and we have tried to take that approach throughout.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I may advance my arguments a little more, then I shall happily give way to Opposition Members.
It may assist the House if I briefly explain the background to the Bill. By definition, all right hon. and hon. Members have been candidates in one or more previous elections for Parliament. I trust, therefore, that we are all familiar with the long-standing requirement in section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that our election leaflets and posters bear an imprint stating the name and address of the printer and publisher. In its old guise, section 110 applied only to material that sought to promote or disparage a particular candidate; it did not apply to national material promoting or disparaging a political party. Section 143 of the 2000 Act made good that omission. Paragraph 14 of schedule 18 to


that Act substituted a new section 110 in the 1983 Act. The new section 110 sought to make the provenance of any election material clearer.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment, but when I have set out what the Bill is about I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. Fabricant: Do not forget me.

Mr. O'Brien: I will not forget the hon. Gentleman. How could I? He is a neighbour of mine and regularly appears in my local press. Indeed, I sometimes think that I cannot get away from his smiling face in the newspapers.
The new section 110 sought to make the provenance of election material clear to everyone, and did so by replacing the requirement to name the publisher with a requirement to identify the promoter and the person on behalf of whom the material is being published. The promoter is the person who calls for the material to be published and would normally be a candidate's election agent; the person on behalf of whom the material is being published would normally be the candidate himself. The new provisions relating to national electoral use deploy identical terminology.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall explain what the Bill is about and then happily give way. Following Royal Assent, we consulted the main parties on the timetable for commencement in relation to section 143 and the new section 110. We proposed that they should come into force along with much of the rest of the 2000 Act as quickly as possible—that is, on 16 February. Unfortunately, at that time, none of the parties dissented and the order was made accordingly.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent, so I shall give way.

Mr. Grieve: One of my tasks was to take the 2000 Act through Committee on behalf of the Opposition. Will the Minister concede that one feature of discussion in Committee was that both the principle of various changes and the practicability of their implementation could be explored? Because he denied the House the opportunity to discuss section 143 when it came back from the House of Lords, there was no opportunity for Members to apply their practical experience to the difficulties that its implementation might cause. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the letter from the Government makes no reference to section 143 or the problems that might surround its implementation.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. He knows, as does everyone who watches

proceedings in this place, that sometimes the Opposition—I suppose that it applies to almost any Opposition—seem to judge the quality of legislation by the length of their speeches, rather than by the quality of the drafting and the objective of making good law.
The part of the Bill under discussion was inserted in the legislation in July last year. There was plenty of time for consultation. We have always made sure that we were open to representations on the Bill from the Conservative party and any other political party. We have always emphasised our desire to move forward by way of consultation and consensus. The hon. Gentleman knows that there were opportunities for the Opposition to raise the issue in consultation or in other ways.
With regard to the letter, it is a matter for the political parties to examine the legislation and decide whether they have any points to raise. That is the purpose of the letter. We did not intend 10 set out the entire Bill in the letter that we sent to the political parties. We wanted to know whether they had any objection to our inserting particular provisions into the law.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious of the time. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and other hon. Members have also asked me to give way. I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for the last time.

Mr. Grieve: I thank the Minister. He says that the Opposition did not respond, but presumably his own party did not respond, either. I understand that at least some of its national literature and posters do not conform with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Mr. O'Brien: That is not quite true. In the consultation period from December to January, the Labour party did not respond on the particular point. Although it did not object to the implementation of the provisions that we suggested, the Labour party did comment on them in July last year, in a telephone call, but that is all. There was no objection from the Labour party, the Conservatives or any of the political parties.
Subsequently, by 16 February, the parties and candidates throughout the country were already preparing for the county council elections. Many of us have experience of unpacking boxes of old leaflets and posters, and re-using them in later elections. Any such material would have borne the old "printer and publisher" imprint. In many cases, new material would have been commissioned without taking into account the new imprint requirements.
What is to be done in that situation? One option would have been for the parties and candidates to pulp the existing stocks of material and to arrange for new leaflets and posters to be printed. The political parties could have done that, at enormous cost and with some difficulty. However, the three main parties have made it clear to us that such an option was neither practical nor realistic. After due consideration, we accepted that, and in line with our wish


to proceed by way of consensus and consultation, we agreed to accept the representations made by the three main parties.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), then to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and then to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Fabricant: In his introduction, the Minister said that the Bill represented not a cancellation of legislation, but a postponement. It may be my lack of drafting skills, but I cannot find the date until which the legislation is to be postponed. Can the Minister clarify that?

Mr. O'Brien: The postponement is not until a particular date. We believe that the matter should be dealt with through consultation with the political parties. We want to enter into discussion not only with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who in the past have been willing to discuss such matters, but with the Conservative party. I hope that, having learned its lesson that consultation is important, the Conservative party will engage seriously in discussions not only about this part of the political parties legislation, but in relation to other issues in the legislation that has already been passed but which has not yet come into force—where commencement provisions have not yet been enacted. I hope that the Conservative and other parties will engage in consultation about the effect on them and on the political process. We need to get it right. We are dealing with a new aspect of law and it is unsurprising that there are some teething troubles with a new area of regulation. The difficulty in question is one of those teething troubles. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that we commenced the new imprint requirements too soon. The best course is, therefore, to suspend the process and to re-establish the status quo ante.

Mr. Beith: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that a further problem came to light only a few weeks ago? I refer to the difficulty of obtaining consistent and practical advice—a difficulty that was faced by the Electoral Commission, among others. Some of the advice suggested that the name of every candidate in a multi-candidate election would have to appear within the imprint. In the light of that lack of consistency, surely it is necessary for some agreement to be reached before the Bill is enacted on what constitutes a proper imprint.

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman raised that issue when he met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. I think that that meeting occurred two weeks ago. It seemed to us that the legislation was unclear. We believe that we can deal with the matter through consultation and, if necessary, by providing clarification on the way in which we should proceed. The Bill gave us the opportunity to proceed in that manner. Clause 2 sets out how we propose to proceed in relation to election publications.

Mr. Leigh: In my experience, when a Bill is enacted, it is usually supported by at least one of the political parties that are represented in the House. The provisions

were wrong in the first place because there was not sufficient time to consider them. The Under-Secretary will have noted that we have to finish Second Reading, the Committee stage and Third Reading by 11 o'clock. If we proceed by order and then counter-order, disorder will be the eventual result. We are now in the counter-order stage of our proceedings. Is not he worried that we might be rushing things again? Does he plan to allow the other place to give these provisions more detailed consideration? Let us get it right this time.

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill was introduced at the request of the Conservative party and of all the main political parties. We hope, therefore, that there is broad agreement on it. We have done our best to ensure that the drafting is correct. I thank the parliamentary draftsmen and officials who worked very hard at short notice to ensure that the Bill was in a proper condition to come before the House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to extend such thanks in relation to the Elections Bill, on which officials and draftsmen also worked hard.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The Under-Secretary made it clear in his answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the existing legislation is defective and needs amendment. Why do the Government think it reasonable to amend that legislation by issuing a fiat in a Henry VIII clause, without providing any opportunity whatever for the House to consider amendments?

Mr. O'Brien: We are not repealing the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my opening remarks, he would be aware that we are postponing commencement in relation to a part of the legislation. We still intend to proceed with new section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but only after we have had the opportunity to consult the political parties. I hope that they will engage in the consultation with more alacrity and clarity than they have in the past. The measure is not defective and we propose to proceed with it. It is a question of when we commence that process.
We could have dealt with the existing legislation in many ways. We could have said that Parliament had decided the law and that our candidates should pulp what they had done wrong. However, we did not think that such a course of action would be consistent with the consultative and open-minded approach that we sought to adopt in order to gain the support not only of other Opposition parties, but of the Conservative party. There was no opposition to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The Conservatives did not vote against it. If I remember rightly, they abstained on Third Reading and did not dissent. I think also that, a number of times, they gave broad support to the general principles of the Neill report, whose implementation they wanted. There was much in that Bill that had broad support.
It is all too easy for hon. Members to criticise our parliamentary draftsmen. Drafting is an art, and they are experienced, but not infallible. Hon. Members should be


careful in criticising public servants who work very hard to try to ensure that they do their best for Parliament. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise. The Minister is entitled to put his case.

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.
Clause 1 rescinds the commencement of section 143 of the 2000 Act and new section 110 of the 1983 Act. The natural consequence of that is to restore the position as at 16 February. In effect, it is as if the old section 110 had continued to operate after that date.
Because we still see merit in the new imprint requirements, clause 2 enables them to be reactivated by order, and it is our intention to do so in due course. I cannot at this stage offer the House a date, not least because we want to consult the Electoral Commission and political parties before we make a decision.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment.
I hope that all the parties and the Electoral Commission will engage in that consultation.
Clause 3 includes a saving for any election publication that complies with new section 110. That saving will apply from 16 February 2001 to the date on which new section 110 is restored. During that transitional period, local material that complies with either the old or the new section 110 will be lawful. I hope that that reassures hon. Members and political parties. Although that option is there, my advice to anyone producing new material would be to comply with new section 110 so that any stocks left over from this year's elections could be reused at a later date. Of course, many Conservative candidates may well want to try their hand again after they have lost.
The circumstances surrounding the Bill are clearly a little unusual, but it is a necessary measure to deal with—

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to protect the House in this situation? We now have 28 minutes left for the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill, and the Minister has not yet concluded his remarks. Are you satisfied the House has sufficient time to discharge its responsibilities in the complete passage of a Bill, when the Minister is still on his feet with 28 minutes left?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The time for which the Minister speaks is entirely a matter for him, but I hope that the whole House will bear the time very much in mind.

Mr. O'Brien: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have taken many interventions because I

wanted to ensure that hon. Members had the opportunity to contribute, but I shall accept no more because the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes the view that Ministers who do so should be penalised. I am trying, genuinely to assist the House, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks to use that to score cheap points. That is uncharacteristic of him; normally his points are much better considered.
Given that the county council elections will occur within nine weeks if the other place agrees with the Elections Bill passed by the House. I hope that the House will understand the need for this Bill to be enacted as quickly as possible. That will require the all-party support that was evident in another place, and I hope that the Bill will receive that here.

Mrs. Angela Browning: It is astonishing that the Minister made no reference to the fact that all stages of the Bill were scheduled to be considered until any hour on Monday this week, when it could have been given proper scrutiny and attention. It is a disgrace that the Government are attempting to pass it in three quarters of an hour.
The Minister was right to say that the Opposition welcome the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, we might want to change our minds. The Bill has cross-party support, and I know that the parties appreciate the way in which the Home Secretary has taken difficult decisions. In introducing the Bill, however embarrassing it may be for him personally or for his Department corporately, he is discharging his duties as Home Secretary.
Despite the fact that the Home Secretary is providing a solution to the problem that the political parties face, the Bill could easily be renamed the Laurel and Hardy Bill, because it is the product of yet another fine mess the Government have got us into—and have even managed to get the Labour party into. I am sure that the Home Secretary does a very good Stan Laurel, but I shall not venture to suggest who in the Department is Oliver Hardy.
As the Minister said, the Bill was tabled in response to concerns expressed by all the main parties about the changes that have been made.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: When we had discussions with the chief executive of the Conservative party, we made it clear that we were prepared to listen to representations from his party but that we did not want cheap party political points thrown around as the hon. Lady has just been doing. That cheapens debate in this place, and makes her appear more of a Laurel and Hardy figure than anyone else.

Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that I took the Minister's intervention. A few weeks ago, I was doing a phone-in on the Ed Doolan show. I talked to a pensioner and then a mother with a young child. Suddenly we had a phone call from Mike of Warwickshire. He was apparently a constituent from Warwickshire who phoned in to ask my views on the Hunting Bill and how I intended to vote. I do not know who Mike from Warwickshire was, but when the Minister rose to make his intervention the word "prat", which went through my mind at the time, occurred to me again. I shall take no more interventions from the hon. Gentleman. He knows who he was.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue is no longer the rights or wrongs of the Bill but the fact


that, now that the Minister has sat down having opened the Second Reading debate, we have only 28 minutes for the remainder of Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading? That is unheard of, and—as if that were not enough—when the Opposition question the Minister, he says that all deals are off and that they are not allowed to criticise the Government. Neither time nor criticism is allowed. Are we the Supreme Soviet or the British Parliament?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a disgrace that, although the Bill has all-party support, it arises from an Act of Parliament that was guillotined through the House. The very section that we are discussing was introduced in the House of Lords, and was never considered by the Commons on Second Reading or in Committee. It came back to the House and was guillotined through. It never had proper scrutiny in the first place.
It is a disgrace for the Minister to praise the draftsmen. He should take responsibility for the Government's failure to allow proper scrutiny of the original Bill before it became an Act of Parliament, and not keep bringing back dregs to the House of Commons so that we can put right the mess that the Government have created. Yes, the Bill has all-party support, but these proceedings are typical of this new Labour Government—all spin, no substance and no acknowledgement of their mistakes.
When this matter was discussed during proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Government tabled no fewer than 665 amendments in the House of Lords. The Minister mentioned July, but in fact this matter came before the other place on 18 October. Lord Bach spoke for the Government, but it was not even explained then. The detail of what the Government are now having to defer was never explained to the House of Commons, and nor was it the subject of detailed consultation with other parties.
In an earlier debate, the Home Secretary kindly gave me a copy of a letter dated December, which was sent to other parties. It did not deal with consultation on the substance of the Bill, but was about implementation. This part of the Bill has never been subject to consultation with political parties. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying from a sedentary position that it is about implementation. Had the substance of this part of the Bill ever been seen or discussed by this place, perhaps even a Labour Member would have noticed that it was flawed, and we would not have had to go through this charade tonight.

Mr. Andrew Miller: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I will not give way to allow any more silly comments to be made by Labour Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye during the 20 minutes that remain for all stages of the Bill to be completed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I must tell the Minister that it is a disgrace that we are having to deal with this matter. It is also a disgrace that Ministers have implied tonight that there was a lack of consultation, or an unwillingness on the part of the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I invite the Minister to tell me precisely where the letter is that indicates that

the Conservative party was not prepared to consult on this part of the Bill. Where is the response that he received from the party saying that we did not wish to discuss the substance of the issues before the House? That was never offered to us. All that we received was a letter which—as the Labour party itself noted, because it failed itself to point out the Bill's inadequacies—contained no reference to what the Government intended by the change in regulations governing imprints in election material. That was never spelt out—not in another place, not here, and not even in the notices that the Government sent out seeking to advise people that they intended to implement the change.
The explanatory notes containing the details were not published until March. That is why political parties on both sides of the House failed to register exactly what the Government intended to do.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I shall be happy to give way to the Minister. I hope that he will justify the cheap allegations that he has been making about why the Conservative party did not respond. We were never asked to respond to the substance of the changes.

Mr. O'Brien: Let me say first that, obviously—as a Member of Parliament—I was invited to engage in debate with the hon. Lady on the Ed Doolan show. I am not sure why she made those silly points, but there we are. Those listening to the debate can decide for themselves.
Let me now deal with the substance. When my noble Friend Lord Bach raised these issues, Lord Cope said in reply:
None of us would disagree with the intention behind these clauses."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 1144.]
Let me add that throughout the debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and in Committee, it was clear that we were prepared to discuss all aspects of the Bill with the Conservative party. I cannot recall one occasion during the whole process on which the Conservatives entered into serious consultation with us on any part of the Bill. That is why I say now that we would welcome the Conservative party's engaging in serious consultation from now on, so that we can be sure we have a Bill that gets it right and has consensus behind it. I want that, and I want it to be taken seriously in future.

Mrs. Browning: If the Minister is serious about taking debate in the Chamber seriously, he and his Government should allow adequate time for debate and scrutiny. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was not given adequate time, and the result is the mess that we are having to tidy up tonight.
There was no filibustering in another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "There was no filibustering here."] There was no filibustering here either; but the Government tabled no fewer than 665 amendments in another place. When those amendments came to the House of Commons, unseen by Members, debate was guillotined. That included the part of the legislation that we are dealing with tonight.


There is much more that I could say—

Mr. Torn Levitt: The hon. Lady has not talked about the substance.

Mrs. Browning: I could talk for another 15 minutes, if the hon. Gentleman wanted me to. I will end, however, by saying that if Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had lived—he was the Conservative Front Bencher who originally took the Bill through the House of Lords—he would have laughed long and hard at the situation in which this House finds itself tonight. He worked hard to improve the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, just as he worked tirelessly in support of many other measures. Throughout his political career he has contributed to many Bills, and in another place he attempted to contribute to that Bill. If it does nothing else, this legislation reflects very clearly his last remarks about it. He observed that
a lot of the devil was in the detail."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000: Vol. 619, c. 1188.]
I suspect that this is not the last time that the House will have to deal with the defects, flaws and lack of scrutiny of the original Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament.
The House having been advised that it would have sufficient time to debate all stages of the Bill on Monday night, it is an absolute disgrace that we are faced with just three quarters of an hour to deal with a Bill of such importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't disagree with it."] No, we do not, but even if we do agree with a Bill, the suggestion that we should pass it through the House without scrutiny shows the lack of understanding among Labour Members of what the job of Parliament—

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Other hon. Members have more sensible things to say in the short time that is left.
I am sure that there is a lot more detail and many more devils to come out of that legislation, which the House will have to sort out. This Bill will have our support because it is in everyone's interests that the mess be cleared up, but it is an affront to democracy and to the House that the Government have allowed just three quarters of an hour for us to deal with this important matter.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I do not quite share the total outrage of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but this is very much the "Carry on Corporal Jones Bill." We have blundered into an error which—let us be frank, although this is not usually the place where one is frank—no one saw coming: not in this House, not in the other place, not in the political party headquarters.
When the interpretation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act by the Electoral Commission filtered through to the parties, we realised that the meaning of the provision was going to place a heavy imposition on the political process.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stunell: I shall, but the hon. Gentleman will have to be brief.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Does he not agree that one of the features of the Committee stage of the Bill in the Commons was that there was a complete spirit of co-operation? In the course of that discussion, numerous instances of this kind emerged, were discussed and were resolved simply because they came up for scrutiny, could be examined and could be dealt with. It is the failure to do that which shames the House and the way in which we operate our procedures.

Mr. Stunell: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on his interpretation of the procedures in Committee. Indeed, elsewhere, I have thanked the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Department for their approach to that legislation. That makes it all the more tedious and all the sadder that we have to revisit the matter tonight.
The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but there is an amendment standing in my name. I was hoping that the Minister might give way when he was speaking, so that he could answer the point. I hope that he might seek to intervene now to answer it because it is important.
The legislation that we are being invited to adopt tonight meets the immediate needs of the political parties and the political process, but clause 2 contains the bland wording:
Introduction of new law …
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide".
It is that re-implementation process with which my amendment sought to deal. We will not reach that this evening but I would like to hear clearly from the Minister the process that the Government are prepared to write into Hansard as being the way forward, so that we know that we will not be at the behest of some future Secretary of State with less good manners and perhaps less good intentions than the current Home Secretary when it comes to re-implementation.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am happy to indicate how the Government would intend to proceed. This legislation, if Parliament agrees to it, will be able to stand the test of another year, I would have thought. In the meantime and certainly in the months to come, we would want to enter into serious discussions with each of the political parties, not just the three main ones, to get a view about how that particular provision and, indeed, other provisions of the legislation, should be dealt with.
I anticipate that we could allow several months for that to occur. I hope that, towards the end of the year, we will be in a position to say how we intend to proceed, having completed consultations. Then, no doubt following


discussions through the usual channels, we will be able to decide whether we need legislation and, if so, the precise terms of the instrument. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. I will be happy to answer any other questions that he has.

Mr. Stunell: I am grateful. The Minister referred in his speech to the electoral commissioners. It is extremely important that, having established the commission, we do not allow clause 2 to bypass it and the objective input that it was supposed to have in the management of the political process. We have been fortunate that, although the ownership of the electoral process has been in the hands of the Home Secretary, it has been so in a judicial rather than a political sense. We do not want the commissioners to be bypassed in a fudge.

Mr. O'Brien: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would want to consult the commissioners fully. Indeed, they were able to have advance sight of the clause. I understand that it went into the Bill in October but was drafted back in July.

Mr. Stunell: I am grateful. I hope that the record will show that we have had some reassurances that this necessary legislation has some of the safeguards around it that some of us seek. I welcome the Minister's offer of further consultation on wider matters, and I hope that all the parties, including the official Opposition, will take it up. It is clearly important to our democratic system to have widespread ownership of the electoral processes that we use.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am minded to table a manuscript amendment to give effect to some of the assurances that the Minister has given. Would such a manuscript amendment be acceptable to you, and how could it be debated in the eight minutes remaining, given that we have not finished Second Reading and five more hon. Members want to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is a hypothetical question, because we have not yet reached Committee stage.

Mr. Stunell: Bearing in mind the time, I simply say that I support the Bill and that I am grateful for such assurances as we have had.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Bill addresses a problem that could have been foreseen if there had been adequate scrutiny. We are patching up matters with retrospective legislation, which is something of which we should always be wary. Indeed, I am not convinced that the Bill is needed at all. Why on earth cannot the Government simply instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions, through the Attorney-General, not to bring any prosecutions? If a private prosecution is brought, there is a well-established practice that the DPP can take it over and offer no evidence.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: We all support what the Bill is intended to achieve, but I am concerned that, in a few days' time, we may have to come back to

it because we find a further lacuna, simply because there has not been adequate scrutiny. We do not have adequate time even for Second Reading, and we will have no Committee stage or Third Reading. We have only six minutes left.
On 11 April 2000, I wrote to the Home Secretary about how imprints ought to be applied to parliamentary websites. He replied on 18 May:
You will not be surprised to learn that much of what you ask is not currently covered by electoral law as it stands. Of course, it is for the courts to interpret present statutes in the light of the evidence".
Although the Home Secretary went on to give some helpful guidance, it was merely guidance. If there had been more time to debate the Bill adequately, I would have tabled amendments—although I am surprised that the Bill does not already contain such provision—based on the Home Secretary's recommendations, so that people could be quite clear on the legality of websites appertaining to hon. Members and candidates in the forthcoming general election, whenever that is held. Currently, there is no clarity.
We have only five minutes left to consider the Bill, and other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and to ensure that there is clarity, my advice would be to use the new provision in section 110. All three categories—the printer, the publisher and the promoter—will be covered by that, so it is all there and all clear. Subsequently, when we implement the provisions, as I trust we will, the websites can be used. I hope that that provides some clarity. What we did not want to do was to catch out someone who still had some of the old material.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I know that it was intended to be helpful, but, sadly, it was not. The Bill does not, for example, deal with archival material or the use of the term MP in a uniform resource locator. They are dealt with in a letter, but not in the Bill. The Bill could have dealt with them if we had had adequate time to table amendments to it. Sadly, there is not time to do that. Sadly, yet again we see that the Government wish to deem legislation.
My fear is that we shall again have to consider this legislation in a week or two, when we discover that it is defective. Neither this Bill nor the original legislation would have been defective if we had had adequate time to scrutinise them. Time and again, however, the Government seem not to be prepared to learn that lesson.

Mr. Eric Forth: This is a grubby, seamy little measure and we really should not be giving it House room at all. It has arisen, of course, because this arrogant Government legislated without proper parliamentary process. A deal has apparently been done among political parties which cannot get their act together. Now we, the legislators, are supposed to cover up for that and change a law that we had been told was necessary. Originally, the Government said that the current arrangements were unnecessary and that the new arrangement was absolutely necessary. Now, they are saying that that was not the situation at all and that it has to be sorted out.
This is truly not the way in which we should use parliamentary process. It is not appropriate for legislation. What makes the situation worse is that, on Monday, we had an opportunity properly to debate, to scrutinise and possibly to amend the legislation. Then, the Government casually set aside that opportunity. Now, they have brought us here, under yet another guillotine, with 45 minutes in total to change the law of the land. That is utterly unacceptable and I hope that we will throw out the Bill.

Mr. Edward Leigh: We have already had the debate on the amount of time allocated to the Bill, so I do not want to make that point again. However, almost every hon. Member is trying to tell the House that this is an entirely straightforward Bill. What really concerned and worried me about this process was the Minister's interventions in the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and the fact that the Minister clearly felt that he had to intervene to clarify to the House the Government's intentions. If the Bill were as clear as everyone is making out, why did the Minister feel that he had to intervene not once, but twice in the hon. Gentleman's speech? The hon. Gentleman was making a perfectly serious speech in which he was not attacking the Government at all, but the Minister felt that he had to clarify the Government's proposals. Is the Bill as clear as the Government say it is?
I do not think that the Bill is clear. It deals with a very complex sphere of the law and with a matter that is of acute concern to all three political parties. One mistake has already been made. Can we, please, just pause for a second and get the legislation right? Can we have a proper Committee stage and not rush the Bill through in just one minute—which is all that we have now for the Bill's remaining stages? This is not good enough.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The Bill cannot be in compliance with the European convention on human rights because of the process by which it is being implemented. It is absolutely outrageous, and I shall vote against it.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 327. Noes 4.

Division No. 180]
[11 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Battle, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bayley, Hugh


Atherton, Ms Candy
Beard, Nigel


Atkins. Charlotte
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Austin, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Bailey, Adrian
Bercow, John


Banks, Tony
Bermingham, Gerald



Best, Harold
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Betts, Clive
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flight, Howard


Blizzard, Bob
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Follett, Barbara


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Galloway, George


Brazier, Julian
Gapes, Mike


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gibson, Dr Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Gill, Christopher


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Butterfill, John
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gray, James


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grieve, Dominic


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Casale, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hammond, Philip


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hayes, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlanck;)
Heald, Oliver



Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hendrick, Mark


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cran, James
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Joyce, Eric


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Edwards, Huw
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Efford, Clive
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Given)


Fabricant, Michael
Kumar, Dr Ashok






Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Purchase, Ken


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Leigh, Edward
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Levitt, Torn
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Linton, Martin



Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lock, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Loughton, Tim
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


Luff, Peter
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Mis Christine (Chester)



Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Shaw, Jonathan


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McFall, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McLoughlin, Patrick



McNulty, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, Jonn


Mallaber, Judy
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stunell, Andrew


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mountford, Kali
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudie, George
Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Tipping, Paddy


Norris, Dan
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jem


O'Hara, Eddie
Truswell, Paul


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Or Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Or George (NW Norfolk)


Paterson, Owen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pickthall, Colin
Tynan, Bill


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pollard, Kerry
Wareing, Robert N


Pond, Chris
Watts, David


Pope, Greg
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
White, Brian


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Prosser, Gwyn
Wilkinson, John



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Willis, Phil
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Amess, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question necessary for the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That clauses 1 to 3 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 314, Noes 2.

Division No. 181]
[11.11 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)


Amess, David



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cann, Jamie


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Caton, Martin


Austin, John
Cawsey, Ian



Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bailey, Adrian
Chaytor, David


Banks, Tony
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clelland, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Collins, Tim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Colman, Tony


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corston, Jean


Bradshaw, Ben
Cousins, Jim


 Brazier, Julian
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Cranston, Ross


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Crausby, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, Jonn (Hornchurch)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burden, Richard
Davidson, Ian


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Butterfill, John
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard



Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dawson, Hilton






Day, Stephen
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Denham, Rt Hon John
Joyce, Eric


Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Khabra, Piara S


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Fabricant, Michael
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Levitt, Torn


Flight, Howard
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Galloway, George
Loughton, Tim


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Luff, Peter


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gill, Christopher
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Gray, James
McDonnell, John


Grieve, Dominic
McFall, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
MacShane, Denis


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hammond, Philip
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
McWilliam, John


Hayes, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heald, Oliver
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hendrick, Mark
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moffatt, Laura


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hutton, John
Norris, Dan


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Paterson, Owen


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pollard, Kerry
Stringer, Graham


Pond, Chris
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pope, Greg
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Purchase, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rapson, Syd
Timms, Stephen


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trickett, Jon


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Truswell, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
burner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tynan, Bill


Sawford, Pill
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Walley, Ms Joan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
Webb, Steve


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon Chns (Islington S)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
William Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Soley, Clive
wood, Mike


Spellar, John
Woodward, Shaun


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Startey, Dr Phyllis
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Gill, Christopher
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Bill reported, without amendment

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day], That the Bill be now read the Third
time.—[Mr. Touhig.]

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 0.

Division No. 182]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bailey, Adrian


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry


Amess, David
Barron, Kevin


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Battle, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bayley, Hugh


Atherton, Ms Candy
Beard, Nigel


Atkins, Charlotte
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)






Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Follett, Barbara


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Best, Harold
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Betts, Clive
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gapes, Mike


Blizzard, Bob
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
George, Pt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradshaw, Ben
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brazier, Julian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gray, James


Browne, Desmond
Grieve, Dominic


Browning, Mrs Angela
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burgon, Colin
Grocott, Bruce


Butterfill, John
Grogan, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hammond, Philip



Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heald, Oliver


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caton, Martin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cawsey, Ian
Hendrick, Mark


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Chaytor, David
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Penttands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clwyd, Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coleman, Iain
Iddon, Or Brian


Colman, Tony
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Corston, Jean
Jenkins, Brian


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cran, James
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Joyce, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dawson, Hilton
Khabra, Piara S


Day, Stephen
Kidney, David


Denham, Rt Hon John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dismore, Andrew
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dobbin, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Donohoe, Brian H
Laxton, Bob


Doran, Frank
Levitt, Torn


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Linton, Martin


Efford, Clive
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fabricant, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Loughton, Tim


Flight, Howard
Love, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Luff, Peter



McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sawford, Phil



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIntosh, Miss Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soley, Clive


McNulty, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mallaber, Judy
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stringer, Graham


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew



Moffatt Laura
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Todd, Mark


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg Derek (Halton)


Paterson, Owen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pearson, Ian
Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Walley, Ms Joan


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David


Pond, Chris
Webb, steve


Pope, Greg
white Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Quinn, Lawrie
Willis, Phil


Rammell, Bill
Wills, Michael


Rapson, Syd
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Wood, Mike


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Woodward, Shaun



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. David Jamieson and


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES



Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Safe Pavements

Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the National Federation for the Blind. It has been organised by a resident of Southend, West, Mrs. Jill Allan-King, and has been signed by blind and partially sighted people from all over the United Kingdom who expressed concern at the unfortunate increasing tendency of cyclists to cycle on the pavement. The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give priority to the enforcement of existing legislation to ensure that pavements, footpaths, promenades and parks are safe for all pedestrians to safely walk on and so prevent the increasing numbers of accidents; and to bring forward proposals for legislation to require cycles & wheelchairs to be fitted with bells or other warning devices.
And the petitioners remain. etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Hastings Multi-Modal Study

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on an issue that was central to my election four years ago in 1997. I said at that time, and I have my election address to prove it, that I would work relentlessly until the Government acknowledged the special needs of Hastings, particularly the need for a transport infrastructure to support social and economic regeneration.
For us, joined-up government means that Hastings needs to be joined up physically to the prosperity of the south-east and beyond. I say "us" because I am lifelong resident of Hastings. Indeed, I can claim a really boring statistic in support of that, as I have never left the town for more than two weeks in my whole life. I know that that will not impress most people, although I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be impressed by my knowledge of the needs of my constituency.
Everyone has heard of Hastings—1066 and all that. Its historic pedigree is first-class. Indeed, until the 1930s it was a thriving seaside resort, the fourth most popular in Britain. Its underground car parks and covered promenades were slate-of-the-art developments. Regular train services brought thousands of holidaymakers to our town and prosperity to our local economy. After the war, all that changed. Years of underinvestment meant that the town was impoverished by the 1960s. The local Tory council's manifesto was:
Not a penny on the rates".
Neither Labour nor Tory Governments came to our aid. Most people thought that it was a safe parliamentary seat for the Tories, so Tory Governments did not bother because they thought that they could not lose and, sadly, Labour Governments did not bother because they thought that they could not win.
That was the environment in which I grew up, went to work and entered local politics. It is true that, from time to time, Governments suggested improvements to the A21. About 30 years ago, the Tonbridge and Pembury bypasses were built, but south of Tonbridge the A21 became a snail trail. Without a transport infrastructure, even more businesses moved out of Hastings, so our economic future looked increasingly bleak.
To abridge the history lesson. 1997 arrived, and with it new hope and new ambitions. With the return of a Labour Government, a Labour Member of Parliament for the first time and a Labour council for the first time, hopes were high.
The campaign for regeneration, to which John Cosson of the 1066 Enterprise and Christine Goldschmidt of the Hastings Trust were committed, gained pace. Single regeneration budget fund moneys came into the town, and the Labour Government made massive investment in social regeneration through sure start, the education action zone and, more recently, neighbourhood renewal schemes. Last year, the European Commission agreed to objective 2 status. Such aid was needed because the local economy was in tatters, with unemployment rates higher than in the former coalfields of the north, and social deprivation left Hastings 28th in the deprivation index.
Policies such as the minimum wage and the working families tax credit have brought hope to a town that still has more workers earning less than £250 a week than anywhere else in Britain. The minimum income guarantee, which has helped about 3,000 of our pensioners, and the winter fuel payments have alleviated much pensioner poverty, but although things are better, we remain the 28th most deprived town in Britain. Although the unemployment rate has virtually halved and youth unemployment is down by 85 per cent., we remain the unemployment blackspot of the south-east.
What will bring about the sea change? What will bring jobs and prosperity, and improve our local environment? What will restore our fortunes to pre-war days? To my mind, and in the opinion of 80 per cent. of my constituents, according to a local poll the solution is the creation of integrated transport access to Hastings, which will improve our economic fortunes and relieve our urban environment.
I support the Government's transport policies. It must be right that we should look first to public transport before private. It must be right that we look to rail, rather than road. For that reason, I have supported the Government's initiative in seeking a multi-modal solution from among the options for access to Hastings.
Before the study was commissioned, there were putative plans for improvements to the A21 and for a bypass around Hastings. That was a road-based solution to access, which, alone, would have been a lost opportunity. The multi-modal study therefore has as its objective to improve access to Hastings and find solutions to regeneration and land use planning pressures, and to see whether options other than roads could achieve those objectives.
The A21 improvement is the most important aspect of the road links between the M25 and the industrial estates in Hastings: it is not just business opportunity that is lost by the A21 track that masquerades as a trunk road, but many lives as well. The appalling carnage on the A21 and the resultant financial costs would justify the improvements that we seek.
The environmentally contentious bypass is of equal importance. I wish that it was unnecessary. The question that the study was intended to address was whether a non-road solution would achieve the objective. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the access study that was presented to my right hon. Friend's Department at the end of February, economic regeneration of the town is not possible without building the roads and the bypass.
Public transport elements of the package are of immense importance, as the rail links are as archaic as the roads. The Charing Cross line on which I travel most days takes one hour and 45 minutes to cover the 60 miles from Hastings to London in 40-year-old trains. The link to Europe through Ashford is served by a single track, non-electrified line on which the trains are even older.
The Government were right to commission the multi-modal study, but now that the result is known the time has come for decision. Although parts of the study were somewhat woolly, it made clear recommendations: first, the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford rail line, with new stock providing a direct link to the Euro service and an alternative route to London; secondly, new in-town stations and a Bexhill-Ore metro across the town, using the existing rail structure to provide for greater local

transport usage; and, thirdly, improvement to the Hastings to London Charing Cross line, including, presumably, new stock.
All that is fine and dandy, and the sooner decisions are made and implemented, the better, but the report makes it clear that public transport improvements alone will not solve the fundamental economic weakness of the area. There must also be, according to the report, improvements to the A21 and the construction of the Hastings bypass. The A21 is perhaps one of the worst roads in Britain. It is said that King Harold was so delayed in coming down the A21 to meet William the Conqueror that William claimed victory when Harold failed to show.
I know that the bypass in particular is environmentally sensitive. I do not rubbish the ideas of the environmental groups that oppose the bypass; I simply think that they are wrong. Their objectives are laudable, but their approach is too narrow. The roads are essential; without them, we cannot secure economic gains or relieve the urban environment.
I shall briefly explain those two objectives. Hastings has little employment land available within the borough. Likewise, housing land, as required by my right hon. Friend's Department in Hastings and Rother, is difficult to identify. However, at Woosnam farm in north Bexhill, which would be opened up only by the building of the bypass, the opportunity exists to create some 3,800 jobs and meet Rother's house building obligation, all within a four or five-mile radius of the unemployed of Hastings.
As far as I am aware, the A259 is the only main trunk road in Britain that transverses the seafront of a major town. It blights the lives of 10,000 of my local constituents and shakes apart some six conservation areas. There is, therefore, a trade off between the rural environment and the urban environment. For my part, I consider both to be equally important. To some extent, I think that the urban environment should have priority when the lives and health of so many of my constituents are so badly blighted by the current pollution and traffic jams that they must endure. In many ways, it should be said that people are more important than plants.
Let me tell the House about the lady whom I met in hospital last Christmas. She was suffering from asthma, and from behind her oxygen mask, she said, "Please, Mr. Foster, get that traffic off the Bexhill road." It was there that she lived. She and many of her neighbours are suffering a higher incidence of asthma that cannot be explained other than by traffic pollution.
Of course, the Government are trying to limit pollution from motor vehicles and are giving incentives. That is to be commended, but in order to make changes of significance here and now, the environmentally conscious Labour council in Hastings needs space to create traffic management measures to reduce traffic flow on the A259. It cannot do so without an alternative route, and no such route exists without the bypass. In Hastings, the bus companies will not even run extra buses on the A259 Bexhill road, because congestion is such that they cannot guarantee a timetable.
I know that the opponents of road building claim that the package will not mean extra jobs, because the new homes that the scheme envisages will create additional demand for jobs. That argument is invalid, because as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is requiring additional housing to be built in any


event, it follows that any additional need for jobs will arise whether or not the bypass is built. Without the bypass, however, there is no opportunity to provide the jobs that would be demanded.
I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister that, although a vocal minority, which comes mostly from outside the area, is opposed to the bypass scheme, this is not another Newbury. It is not a precedent or the start of a south-coast motorway. All that we ask for is a modest single-track relief road around the north of Hastings and Bexhill. In Newbury, the town was divided. In Hastings, it is united. There is all-party support. East Sussex county council and Hastings borough council are 100 per cent. behind the total package. The South East England regional assembly—the very body that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up to advise on these matters—voted by 100 votes to eight to recommend that the integrated package be approved. If local democracy means anything, that must be taken into account. In Hastings, regeneration is vital. My constituents do not want handouts for ever more. They want a hand up, which is what the package will provide. It means prioritising rail and public transport, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister has accepted elsewhere, it also means that roads may form part of a solution.
So, what I ask my right hon. Friend tonight is this: first, will either he or one of his ministerial colleagues visit my constituency to see the problem for themselves? I know that such a visit will graphically express the need for a positive decision, more than any oral submission could ever do. I have never understood the logic—or, for that matter, the legal authority—of the advice that Ministers have received to avoid such a visit. It may have been given because a visit would take too long, and I can understand that. I ask, therefore, that he and his colleagues think again.
Secondly, my constituents need an early answer. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend's ministerial colleagues in the Department have had the report only since the end of February, but it was accompanied by overwhelming advice from SEERA and other authorities, so surely the decision cannot be that difficult. I would welcome an indication from him on when a decision will be made.
Thirdly, if the decision on the bypass is so sensitive that, despite the clear unequivocal advice of all those who have been asked to comment, it is still to be further reviewed, cannot the balance of the package, including the A21 improvements, be approved, as has occurred elsewhere? I understand my right hon. Friend's dilemma, although I do not appreciate it, but I am a pragmatist, so I would welcome an immediate decision on the parts of the package that are not hotly in dispute.
Fourthly, I would welcome assurance from my right hon. Friend that the position remains that which was set out in a letter that I received from Lord Whitty on 28 March. The letter said that the decisions made on that day in respect of other schemes had no impact on the outcome of the Hastings study, as some believed. In particular, I was informed that
no decision whatsoever has yet been made".
Finally, although an ultimate "yes" to the integrated package is expected, it would be helpful to those who want to invest in our town, but who are awaiting a decision, to know the timetable within which a decision will be made.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) for raising this extremely important topic and for his lucid, cogent presentation of his case. It was interesting to learn of his lifelong commitment to his town and to hear at first hand the impact that congestion is having on the economic and environmental well-being of Hastings and the surrounding areas. He set out the economic and social case for transport improvements very clearly. He treated us to fascinating speculation about how the course of British history might have been altered if some of the improvements that he seeks had been in place some 935 years ago.
The Government recognise that both quality of life and a prosperous economy depend on transport. Motor vehicles have revolutionised the way we live, bringing greater flexibility and widening horizons, but the way we use our vehicles has a price for the economy, for our health and for the environment. Integrated transport is designed to extend choice and to provide a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair. It will provide more choice, better public transport, less pollution and better protection for the environment.
The environment-transport interface, which is important throughout the country, is especially prominent in the south-east, where population pressure is strong, car ownership and usage levels are high and one third of the land is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Good communications are central to the economy and our quality of life. These are complex issues, and there is no single panacea.
It may be helpful if I first set the multi-modal study in its wider policy context. The Government's 1998 roads review, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", a daughter document to the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", set out for the first time our view of the role of trunk roads within a fully integrated transport policy. It reviewed the long wish-list of trunk road schemes that the Government inherited against our key criteria for transport: accessibility, safety, economy, environmental impact and integration.
As a result of the review, we introduced a well-focused, targeted programme of improvements, or TPI, to the trunk road and motorway network. The TPI originally included 37 schemes that met the criteria that I have set out, and following further announcements since 1998, it now includes 49 schemes, all of which we are committed to delivering.
However, the roads review also recognised that there were many serious and urgent problems on our trunk road network which were not addressed by that programme of improvements. Many of those problems were particularly complex and could be addressed only by looking across the piece at all transport issues. We therefore commissioned a series of major transport studies to consider those issues in depth.
The programme of studies, finalised in March 1999, included the "Access to Hastings" multi-modal study. We recognised that as one of the most urgent cases and put it


into our first tranche of studies. The aim of the multi-modal studies is to investigate problems in all transport modes and to seek balanced solutions that contribute to our integrated transport policy by protecting the environment and supporting sustainable economic growth.
The primary aim of the "Access to Hastings" study was to consider how transport could contribute to regenerating the economy of the area in and around Hastings and Bexhill, while minimising the impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. In particular, the study was asked to consider the role of four existing trunk road schemes in providing a solution: the A21 Tonbridge-Pembury bypass, the A259 Bexhill-Hastings western bypass, the A259 Hastings eastern bypass and the A259 Pevensey-Bexhill improvement. As my hon. Friend said, the multi-modal study also covered rail links to London, Ashford and the channel tunnel.
The scope and content for the A259 schemes within the study was set out in the Secretary of State's interim decision letter of July 1998. That set out his "minded to" decision to make the orders for the A259 Hastings western bypass, subject to the scheme's regeneration impact, as determined by the "Access to Hastings" multi-modal study.
My hon. Friend has invited me or one of my colleagues to visit Hastings to see at first hand the case for the A259 bypass. I put it to him that that is not possible, because of Ministers' quasi-judicial role in this process. As my hon. Friend expressed some uncertainty, it may be helpful if I put on record the nature of that quasi-judicial role.
Draft statutory orders are published under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. An environmental impact assessment is published alongside the draft orders. When made, those orders give the Secretary of State the statutory authority to carry out a road improvement scheme. If there are any unresolved statutory objectors to the published orders, a local inquiry is held. The inquiry, like the one held into the Hastings schemes, is conducted by an independent inspector.
After considering the inspector's report of the inquiry and his recommendation, the Secretary of State issues his decision on the orders. If the decision is that the scheme should proceed, the orders are made taking into account any modifications recommended by the inspector that the Secretary of State has accepted.
If a proposed modification makes a substantial change to the published orders, the views of interested parties affected by those modifications must be taken into account. Circumstances can arise that require supplementary draft orders to be published which would be subject to the same procedure as the main orders, and an inquiry would be held if necessary.
The Secretary of State acts in a quasi-judicial role in taking decisions on orders authorising trunk road schemes that have been to local inquiry. The guiding principles for taking such statutory decisions are that the Secretary of State must be evenhanded in dealing with all interested parties, must follow the procedure rules scrupulously and must have regard to the rules of fairness and natural justice as developed by the courts.

Mr. Foster: I understand my right hon. Friend's point about the statutory obligations, but do those obligations

prevent the visit from taking place, provided that the Secretary of State is not subject to canvassing or lobbying by any group? Perhaps he could see both groups at the same time. Is there anything in the provisions that says he cannot attend an area over which he is making a decision?

Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult for the Secretary of State or a Minister to visit an area and see all the factors that may be considered relevant by all the people who may have an objection, and to make himself available to all the parties who have an objection. In such complex matters, there may be modifications that could lead to further objections. It would put the Secretary of State in an almost impossible position to make a visit and to maintain the principle of evenhandedness, which is fundamental to the performance of the quasi-judicial role. That is why the Secretary of State, by custom, does not visit an area that is subject to a major inquiry of this nature.
I speak with some authority on this subject as the Minister responsible for planning procedures with an analogous quasi-judicial role. Planning Ministers must be extremely careful about accepting invitations to visit sites where planning applications may be considered by the Secretary of State in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend understands and accepts that there is not a reluctance to see the circumstances of an area. I visited his area some time ago at his invitation, when I had no involvement in this process.
I reassure my hon. Friend that we recognise the urgent need to encourage a social and economic renaissance in Hastings. As he emphasised, the index of local deprivation recognises Hastings as one of the most deprived areas in the south-east. As such it receives significant regeneration funding: around £35 million is already committed to the area in the period to 2007, mainly under the single regeneration budget, but also from objective 2 funds and through the neighbourhood renewal programme.
We recognise that if we are to maximise the investment, we must get the provision of transport infrastructure and services right. However, the relationship between economic regeneration and transport improvements is extremely complex. The right transport investments can open up areas to new markets, opportunities and investors; but get it wrong, and new transport schemes could drain further an already depressed area. That difficult issue was central to the Hastings study.
As I have said, the issues are complex. It may be helpful if I say a little more about the process involved in the study. A consortium led by Steer Davies Gleave was appointed, following competitive tender, in November 1999. This was the first study to get under way. The Government office of the south-east led and financed it, but we thought it essential to involve all other key interests on an equal basis. Thus, as with all the multi-modal studies, we established a steering group that was responsible for the management and direction of the study. Membership was wide, incorporating all district and county councils directly involved in the study's coverage, as well as the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency, the regional development agency, and other business and local environmental groups.
The study went through a well-structured process. It analysed in depth the economic transport and planning issues in the study area; the consultants identified a range


of possible measures to address the problems, and assembled them into a number of strategies. The possible impacts of the packages were then appraised in detail, to obtain a broad picture of the costs and benefits of the different options. The focus of the work concentrated on the economic and environmental impacts. The consultants broke new ground in their analysis of the potential impact of transport measures on a local economy, and provided a comprehensive analysis of the existing economies of Bexhill and Hastings.
Fundamental to the process was a comprehensive consultation exercise. Emphasis was placed on giving people and interested organisations opportunities to participate in problem identification, strategy formulation and the derivation of solutions. It was intended that inviting greater involvement, including newsletters and telephone interviews, would make the solutions more appropriate, and—importantly—more fully understood by a broad spectrum of the community.
The consultants' final report was agreed by all members of the steering group at the end of November 2000. The report provided an analysis of current and future transport problems in the study area, identified solutions based on transport, economic and environmental data and the extensive consultation process, and recommended solutions in the form of a preferred strategy.
The preferred strategy identified by the consultants is in four parts, to which my hon. Friend referred. The first concerns the public transport elements. The consultants recommended the provision of a Bexhill-to-Ore metro service and a new railway station at Glyne Gap, the electrification of and infrastructure improvements to the Ashford-to-Hastings line, an enhanced local rail service between Wadhurst and Tonbridge, strengthened quality bus partnerships, and other supporting measures.
Secondly, the consultants made firm recommendations on highway improvements. They recommended that an online widening of the A21 from Tonbridge to Pembury to "dual two" standard be taken forward to statutory processes; they also recommended that the A259 Pevensey-to-Bexhill dual carriageway improvement should not proceed.
Thirdly, the consultants concluded that more work should be undertaken to investigate opportunities for further improvement in a multi-modal context along the A21 corridor, particularly in the light of sensitivities surrounding the area of outstanding natural beauty through which the route passes.
Fourthly, the consultants considered the case for the A259 Bexhill and Hastings western bypass and A259 eastern bypass schemes. They analysed the potential

impacts of the bypasses. In terms of regeneration, they concluded that the bypasses could provide between 2,500 and 3,000 additional jobs; however, they also felt that the balance of argument was such that they could not make a recommendation on whether the bypasses should proceed. While they might improve the potential for regeneration, that needed to be balanced against the Government's strong presumption against schemes that would significantly affect environmentally sensitive areas, or important species, habitats or landscapes.
In the case of the Hastings study, the western bypass would need to proceed on a viaduct across the Combe Haven site of special scientific interest; and a modified junction, at the western end of the bypass at the junction with the existing A259, is within the Pevensey levels SSSI, which is also listed as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention on wetlands.
The eastern bypass runs through the sensitive Brede valley area within the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty. The consultants thus concluded that decision makers should consider the output of the study on the basis of two strategies, one with and one without the proposed bypasses. The consultants estimated that the strategy without the bypasses would cost £90.3 million at 1999 prices, and that, with the bypasses, the cost would be £225.8 million.
The steering group commended the consultants' report to the regional assembly, suggesting consideration in the context of wider regional objectives. A covering letter reflecting the considerations of the steering group accompanied the submission to the regional assembly. The letter reflects the fact that the group reached consensus on many issues and, indeed, many of the recommendations. There was not a consensus view in the steering group, however, with regard to the bypass schemes. A majority considered the case was sufficiently strong to proceed, although the case was not overwhelming.
As my hon. Friend said, the regional assembly considered the final report at its plenary session on 14 February and submitted its recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 21 February. The assembly reported that the transport strategy on the bypasses would, in its view, give the best chance for the effective renaissance and regeneration of the area. It qualified its support by considering that the transport package should be viewed as part of a wider strategy for regeneration.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Twelve midnight.

Deferred Divisions

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 9.

Division No. 174]



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clelland, David


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Ann



Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Austin, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bailey, Adrian
Corston, Jean


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Beggs, Roy



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darvill, Keith


Bennett, Andrew F
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Best, Harold
Dawson, Hilton


Betts, Clive
Denham, Rt Hon John


Blackman, Liz
Dismore, Andrew


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brake, Tom
Edwards, Huw


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Feam, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Cable, Dr Vincent
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fyfe, Maria


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Caton, Martin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
 Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gidley, Sandra



Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grocott, Bruce
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grogan, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hain, Peter
McFall, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McGrady, Eddie


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McIsaac, Shona


Hancock, Mike
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hanson, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Harvey, Nick
McNulty, Tony


Healey, John
MacShane, Denis


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hendrick, Mark
McWilliam, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heppell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hoey, Kate
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Iddon, Dr Brian



Illsley, Eric
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Neill, Martin


Joyce, Eric
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keetch, Paul
Pickthall, Colin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Leslie, Christopher
Rendel, David


Levitt, Tom
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Livsey, Richard
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruane, Chris






Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sanders, Adrian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Timms, Stephen


Savidge, Malcolm
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Trickett, Jon


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Webb, Steve


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Willis, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wills, Michael


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wood, Mike


Stunell, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, David (NW Leics)





NOES


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Robathan, Andrew


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McCrea, Dr William
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10802/00, draft directives on waste electrical and electronic equipment and on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment; notes the Government's current negotiating line on the Document; and supports the Government's actions.

The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 126.

Division No. 175]



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Douglas
Battle, John


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Berth, Rt Hon A J


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atkins, Charlotte
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Austin, John
Bennett, Andrew F


Bailey, Adrian
Benton, Joe


Ballard, Jackie
Best, Harold



Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Blackman, Liz
Fearn, Ronnie


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brake, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burstow, Paul
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gidley, Sandra


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) 
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hendrick, Mark


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepbum, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cotter, Brian
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cox, Tom
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crausby, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hutton, John


Darvill, Keith
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Edwards, Huw
Joyce, Eric


Efford, Clive
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)






Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keetch, Paul
Pickthall, Colin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Leslie, Christopher
Rendel, David


Levitt, Tom
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Livsey, Richard
Ross, Erne (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Sanders, Adrian


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McGrady, Eddie
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Timms, Stephen


O'Hara, Eddie
Todd, Mark


Olner, Bill
Tonge, Dr Jenny


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Organ, Mrs Diana
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Willis, Phil


Tyler, Paul
Wills, Michael


Tynan, Bill
Winnick, David


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Ward, Ms Claire
Woodward, Shaun


Watts, David
Worthington, Tony


Webb, Steve
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


White, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Wicks, Malcolm





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Arness, David
Lansley, Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Leigh, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Loughton, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter


Bercow, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Blunt, Crispin
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Body, Sir Richard
McCrea, Dr William


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Madel, Sir David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mates, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Burns, Simon
May, Mrs Theresa


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Norman, Archie



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Pace, James


Collins, Tim
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cran, James
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Prior, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Randall, John


Duncan, Alan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hayes, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Key, Robert
Walter, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Waterson, Nigel






Whittingdale, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 435, Noes 38.

Division No. 176]



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alexander, Douglas
Caplin, Ivor


Amess, David
Casale, Roger


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Caton, Martin


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clappison, James


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atherton, Ms Candy



Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Austin, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beggs, Roy
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Collins, Tim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Colman, Tony


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Best, Harold
Corston, Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Cox, Tom


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cran, James


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cranston, Ross


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blunt, Crispin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul



Body, Sir Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boswell, Tim
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dalyell, Tam


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Dawson, Hilton


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, Rt Hon John


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dobbin, Jim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Burns, Simon
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Butterfill, John
Drew, David


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Drown, Ms Julia


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Duncan, Alan


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Duncan Smith, Iain



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Edwards, Huw
Humble, Mrs Joan


Efford, Clive
Hutton, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Iddon, Dr Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Illsley, Eric


Ennis, Jeff
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Fabricant, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Fallon, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jamieson, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Flight, Howard



Flint, Caroline
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Follett, Barbara
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Joyce, Eric


Foulkes, George
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fox, Dr Liam
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fraser, Christopher
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fyfe, Maria
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Gale, Roger
Kemp, Fraser


Galloway, George
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gardiner, Barry
Key, Robert


Garnier, Edward
Khabra, Piara S


Gerrard, Neil
Kidney, David


Gibb, Nick
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gibson, Dr Ian
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Goggins, Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lammy, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lansley, Andrew


Gray, James
Laxton, Bob


Green, Damian
Leigh, Edward


Greenway, John
Lepper, David


Grieve, Dominic
Leslie, Christopher


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Grocott, Bruce
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Grogan, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Linton, Martin


Hain, Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Loughton, Tim


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Love, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Luff, Peter


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hammond, Philip
McAvoy, Thomas


Hanson, David
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Hawkins, Nick
McCrea, Dr William


Hayes, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Heald, Oliver
Macdonald, Calum


Healey, John
McFall, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
McGrady, Eddie


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hendrick, Mark
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hepburn, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Heppell, John
McIsaac, Shona


Hesford, Stephen
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hoey, Kate
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hood, Jimmy
McNulty, Tony


Hope, Phil
MacShane, Denis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Horam, John
McWalter, Tony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McWilliam, John


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Madel, Sir David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Howells, Dr Kim
Mallaber, Judy


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)






Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rammell, Bill


Martlew, Eric
Randall, John


Mates, Michael
Rapson, Syd


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Maxton, John
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


May, Mrs Theresa
Robathan, Andrew


Merron, Gillian
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Miller, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Mitchell, Austin
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Moffatt, Laura
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Moran, Ms Margaret
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Rowlands, Ted


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Joan


Moss, Malcolm
Ruffley, David


Mountford, Kali
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mudie, George
St Aubyn, Nick


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Savidge, Malcolm


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Sawford, Phil


Norman, Archie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Norris, Dan
Shaw, Jonathan


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Sheerman, Barry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Shepherd, Richard


O'Hara, Eddie
Shipley, Ms Debra


Olner, Bill
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


O'Neill, Martin
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Ottaway, Richard
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Page, Richard
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Paice, James
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Paisley, Rev Ian



Palmer, Dr Nick
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Paterson, Owen
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pearson, Ian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Soames, Nicholas


Pickles, Eric
Soley, Clive


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Plaskitt, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Pope, Greg
Spicer, Sir Michael


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Pound, Stephen
Squire, Ms Rachel


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stevenson, George


Primarolo, Dawn
Stewart, Cavid (Inverness E)


Prior, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Prosser, Gwyn
Stinchcombe, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Stoate, Dr Howard


Quinn, Lawrie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Streeter, Gary
Tynan, Bill


Stringer, Graham
Tyrie, Andrew


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Viggers, Peter


Swayne, Desmond
Vis, Dr Rudi


Syms, Robert
Walley, Ms Joan


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Walter, Robert


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Ward, Ms Claire



Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
White, Brian


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Willetts, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Thompson, William



Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Todd, Mark
Wills, Michael


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Trickett, Jon
Wood, Mike


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Woodward, Shaun


Truswell, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Yeo, Tim


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Twigg, Derek (Halton)





NOES


Ballard, Jackie
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Keetch, Paul


Brake, Tom
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)



Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burstow, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cable, Dr Vincent
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Oaten, Mark


Cotter, Brian
Rendell, David


Davey Edward (Kingston)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George Andrew (St Ives)
Stunell, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hancock, Mike
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Harvey, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Webb, Steve


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Willis, Phil


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.